Tag: Delhi HC

DAS III: IBF welcomes Delhi HC order

MUMBAI: The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) has welcomed the order passed by the Delhi High Court on 3 November 2016 dismissing nine DAS-related petitions. The petitions dealt with the time extension for implementing digital addressable system (DAS) in certain areas of Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and Uttar Pradesh under Phase-III, the deadline for which had expired on 31 December 2015.

There is no change in DAS Phase IV deadline, which continues to be 31 December 2016.

With the dismissal of these petitions, the stay granted by various high courts in areas covered by the above-mentioned nine cases stands vacated and will no longer apply.

The Delhi High Court, dismissing these petitions, has also directed the petitioners to switch over to digital addressable systems within three weeks i.e. by 24 November 2016 and inform the subscribers by running a scroll on their networks about the digital switchover deadline

The high courts in various parts of the country had earlier granted stay in certain matters on DAS Phase III deadline. The stay orders had stalled the implementation of DAS Phase III in those areas. This prompted the MIB to move the Supreme Court to get all the cases transferred to the apex court.

The SC made Delhi High Court as the designated court for all cases related to DAS Phase III. The above-mentioned order of the Delhi High Court has removed the impediments in implementation of DAS in Phase – III areas.

The IBF has advised all its member-broadcasters to apprise all its affiliate multi-system operators (MSOs) and local cable operators about the said switchover deadline of 24 November 2016 in these Phase – III areas and make it clear that after the said date the channels can be received only through a digital set-top box. The subscribers in these areas are advised to immediately contact their respective local cable operators (LCOs)/MSOs to ensure the installation of STBs before the expiry of the above-mentioned deadline.

November 8, 2016
DAS III: IBF welcomes Delhi HC order

MUMBAI: The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) has welcomed the order passed by the Delhi High Court on 3 November 2016 dismissing nine DAS-related petitions. The petitions dealt with the time extension for implementing digital addressable system (DAS) in certain areas of Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and Uttar Pradesh under Phase-III, the deadline for which had expired on 31 December 2015.

There is no change in DAS Phase IV deadline, which continues to be 31 December 2016.

With the dismissal of these petitions, the stay granted by various high courts in areas covered by the above-mentioned nine cases stands vacated and will no longer apply.

The Delhi High Court, dismissing these petitions, has also directed the petitioners to switch over to digital addressable systems within three weeks i.e. by 24 November 2016 and inform the subscribers by running a scroll on their networks about the digital switchover deadline

The high courts in various parts of the country had earlier granted stay in certain matters on DAS Phase III deadline. The stay orders had stalled the implementation of DAS Phase III in those areas. This prompted the MIB to move the Supreme Court to get all the cases transferred to the apex court.

The SC made Delhi High Court as the designated court for all cases related to DAS Phase III. The above-mentioned order of the Delhi High Court has removed the impediments in implementation of DAS in Phase – III areas.

The IBF has advised all its member-broadcasters to apprise all its affiliate multi-system operators (MSOs) and local cable operators about the said switchover deadline of 24 November 2016 in these Phase – III areas and make it clear that after the said date the channels can be received only through a digital set-top box. The subscribers in these areas are advised to immediately contact their respective local cable operators (LCOs)/MSOs to ensure the installation of STBs before the expiry of the above-mentioned deadline.

November 8, 2016
Hearing of DAS cases in Delhi HC put off to Oct

NEW DELHI: The hearing of the first bunch of cases relating to the stay orders on Phase III of Digital Addressable System has been adjourned by the Delhi High Court to 5 October as the court did not assemble after the lunch break.

The cases were listed before Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, who is also scheduled to hear on 13 September three more cases including that of Home Systems Pvt Ltd of Mumbai and another by Digiana Pvt Ltd which have been transferred to the Court.

The application by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) for being impleaded in the case also did not come up for hearing. However, it is expected that this may be mentioned on 13 September.

Some of the cases scheduled for hearing today included the Rohtak Cable Operators’ Association, Andhra Pradesh MSOs Welfare Federation, Multi System Operators’ Welfare Association, Sai Big Star Welfare Association, Sree Devi Digital Systems, Federation of Telangana MSO, DEN Manoranjan Satellite, Victory Digital, Sri Chowdeshwary Cable Network, Shyam Baba Cable Network, Panchajanya Media, Bharat Digital Cable Network, Nashik Zilla Cable Operators Association, Bhima Riddhi Digital Services and Yogesh Cable Networks.

A total of 62 cases had been filed by multi-system operators (MSOs) in various courts for extension in the deadline of Phase lll. Of these, 12 cases had been disposed of by respective courts and three cases had been withdrawn by the petitioners.

In the 16th Task Force meeting, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry (MIB) had for the first time admitted that the Law Ministry had observed that the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court staying Phase III “appears to have all lndia applicability”.

(The Ministry had sought this opinion in view of the Bombay High Court making a reference to the Kusum Ingots case which had said that if one high court gives an order, others can give similar orders if similar circumstances exist. indiantelevision.com had reported in January this year that the MIB had told the Punjab and Haryana high court that it had ‘decided not to press the requirement of having a STB as for now till the decision of the cases which are pending before various other high courts’).

The meeting had been told that there were no cases in twenty states but the MIB was not in a position to issue orders in view of the advice given by the law ministry.

Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

Cases are pending in the High Courts of Bombay, Hyderabad (with separate petitions for Telengana and Andhra Pradesh), Allahabad, Assam, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh for the entire states, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.

In Karnataka, three individual stakeholders got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay.

September 7, 2016
Hearing of DAS cases in Delhi HC put off to Oct

NEW DELHI: The hearing of the first bunch of cases relating to the stay orders on Phase III of Digital Addressable System has been adjourned by the Delhi High Court to 5 October as the court did not assemble after the lunch break.

The cases were listed before Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, who is also scheduled to hear on 13 September three more cases including that of Home Systems Pvt Ltd of Mumbai and another by Digiana Pvt Ltd which have been transferred to the Court.

The application by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) for being impleaded in the case also did not come up for hearing. However, it is expected that this may be mentioned on 13 September.

Some of the cases scheduled for hearing today included the Rohtak Cable Operators’ Association, Andhra Pradesh MSOs Welfare Federation, Multi System Operators’ Welfare Association, Sai Big Star Welfare Association, Sree Devi Digital Systems, Federation of Telangana MSO, DEN Manoranjan Satellite, Victory Digital, Sri Chowdeshwary Cable Network, Shyam Baba Cable Network, Panchajanya Media, Bharat Digital Cable Network, Nashik Zilla Cable Operators Association, Bhima Riddhi Digital Services and Yogesh Cable Networks.

A total of 62 cases had been filed by multi-system operators (MSOs) in various courts for extension in the deadline of Phase lll. Of these, 12 cases had been disposed of by respective courts and three cases had been withdrawn by the petitioners.

In the 16th Task Force meeting, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry (MIB) had for the first time admitted that the Law Ministry had observed that the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court staying Phase III “appears to have all lndia applicability”.

(The Ministry had sought this opinion in view of the Bombay High Court making a reference to the Kusum Ingots case which had said that if one high court gives an order, others can give similar orders if similar circumstances exist. indiantelevision.com had reported in January this year that the MIB had told the Punjab and Haryana high court that it had ‘decided not to press the requirement of having a STB as for now till the decision of the cases which are pending before various other high courts’).

The meeting had been told that there were no cases in twenty states but the MIB was not in a position to issue orders in view of the advice given by the law ministry.

Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

Cases are pending in the High Courts of Bombay, Hyderabad (with separate petitions for Telengana and Andhra Pradesh), Allahabad, Assam, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh for the entire states, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.

In Karnataka, three individual stakeholders got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay.

September 7, 2016
Delhi HC notice to Govt on petition seeking cancellation of Ad cap violating pay channels licenses

NEW DELHI: Even as the Ad cap case is pending before it, the Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry on a fresh petition which has charged the ministry with dereliction of its duties to take action against offending Pay TV broadcasters for violating the terms and conditions of the licenses/permission for uplinking and downlinking permission/license.

Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath asked the ministry to file its reply in four weeks.

Notice was issued only to the ministry, although the petition also listed 21st Century Fox Inc., Star India Private Limited, Discovery Communications Inc., and Discovery Networks Asia-Pacific (South Asia) as respondents.

Although the petition initially came up before a single bench on 19 May, it was directed to be posted before the court of the Chief Justice who is already hearing the other acap case filed by the News Broadcasters Association and others, and was heard on 27 May.

The petitioners Vikki Choudhry and Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd. have urged the court to issue directions for cancellation of the licences of Star India and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific as they are alleged to be in violation of the license conditions agreed by them under clause 5.2 of the uplinking guidelines and clause 5.1 of the downlinking guidelines, apart from the undertaking in the form of affidavit for the Up-linking and Down-linking Guidelines, and also in violation of the provisions of section 8 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. It is alleged that these two have deliberately violated the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and rules thereunder.

The Court has also been urged to issue writ, order or direction to the two groups to deposit the revenue earned from the advertisement during the last three financial years (FY 2015-16, 2014-15, 2013-14) with the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central Government constituted under the Excise Act, 1944

Directions have also been sought for the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre of the I & B Ministry to monitor all the Pay TV channels broadcast in India and report the violations of the prescribed Advertising Code under the rule 7 (10) and 7(11) of the CTN Rules, 1994 and the CTNR Act, 1995 on monthly/weekly basis.

The petition has alleged that the Pay TV broadcasters are in continuous violation of the terms of license under the uplinking and downlinking guidelines, and have in their weekly report admitted the same. It said “all the respondent channels are being parties as matter of illustration and ease of pleadings because the rule of minutage of advertisement 12 minutes per clock hour is in existence in several countries and these channels are strictly complying with such directives in other countries whereas they are in continued violations in India”.

It was pointed out that Star India is a 100 percent subsidiary of 21st Century Fox Inc. and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific is 100 percent subsidiary of Discovery Communications Inc.
It said the pay TV broadcasters are indulging into profiteering at the expense of poor ordinary consumers in blatant violation of important tariff structure contained in the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines and permissions granted by the Ministry.

The petitioner said it had given detailed representations to the ministry several times without getting any reply. The petitioner had written to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in this connection but received a reply that the matter pertained to the ministry.

It has been pointed out that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petitions before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal against the Standards of Quality of Service (duration of advertisements in television channels) Regulations 2012 and assured the Tribunal that its members would comply with the law.

June 3, 2016
Delhi HC notice to Govt on petition seeking cancellation of Ad cap violating pay channels licenses

NEW DELHI: Even as the Ad cap case is pending before it, the Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry on a fresh petition which has charged the ministry with dereliction of its duties to take action against offending Pay TV broadcasters for violating the terms and conditions of the licenses/permission for uplinking and downlinking permission/license.

Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath asked the ministry to file its reply in four weeks.

Notice was issued only to the ministry, although the petition also listed 21st Century Fox Inc., Star India Private Limited, Discovery Communications Inc., and Discovery Networks Asia-Pacific (South Asia) as respondents.

Although the petition initially came up before a single bench on 19 May, it was directed to be posted before the court of the Chief Justice who is already hearing the other acap case filed by the News Broadcasters Association and others, and was heard on 27 May.

The petitioners Vikki Choudhry and Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd. have urged the court to issue directions for cancellation of the licences of Star India and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific as they are alleged to be in violation of the license conditions agreed by them under clause 5.2 of the uplinking guidelines and clause 5.1 of the downlinking guidelines, apart from the undertaking in the form of affidavit for the Up-linking and Down-linking Guidelines, and also in violation of the provisions of section 8 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. It is alleged that these two have deliberately violated the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and rules thereunder.

The Court has also been urged to issue writ, order or direction to the two groups to deposit the revenue earned from the advertisement during the last three financial years (FY 2015-16, 2014-15, 2013-14) with the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central Government constituted under the Excise Act, 1944

Directions have also been sought for the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre of the I & B Ministry to monitor all the Pay TV channels broadcast in India and report the violations of the prescribed Advertising Code under the rule 7 (10) and 7(11) of the CTN Rules, 1994 and the CTNR Act, 1995 on monthly/weekly basis.

The petition has alleged that the Pay TV broadcasters are in continuous violation of the terms of license under the uplinking and downlinking guidelines, and have in their weekly report admitted the same. It said “all the respondent channels are being parties as matter of illustration and ease of pleadings because the rule of minutage of advertisement 12 minutes per clock hour is in existence in several countries and these channels are strictly complying with such directives in other countries whereas they are in continued violations in India”.

It was pointed out that Star India is a 100 percent subsidiary of 21st Century Fox Inc. and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific is 100 percent subsidiary of Discovery Communications Inc.
It said the pay TV broadcasters are indulging into profiteering at the expense of poor ordinary consumers in blatant violation of important tariff structure contained in the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines and permissions granted by the Ministry.

The petitioner said it had given detailed representations to the ministry several times without getting any reply. The petitioner had written to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in this connection but received a reply that the matter pertained to the ministry.

It has been pointed out that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petitions before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal against the Standards of Quality of Service (duration of advertisements in television channels) Regulations 2012 and assured the Tribunal that its members would comply with the law.

June 3, 2016
HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: The registry of the Supreme Court has finally sent to all the concerned high courts the directive of the apex court for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions’.

Court registry officials told indiantelevision.com that the order of the apex court of early this month had been sent on 16 April. A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that court to fix a date.

The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various high courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.

Earlier, the apex court had accepted the plea of the central government that ‘it would be justand proper for this court to withdraw all those cases pending in different high courtsand transfer the same to Delhi High Court.’

In its order of 1 April, justices V Gopala Gowda and Arjun Mishra had said on the transfer petition filed by the central government that ‘in future, if any case on the same legalquestion is filed before the high court(s), such case(s) shall also be transferred to theDelhi High Court’.

The Supreme Court registry was directed to communicate the order tothe registrar general(s) of the respective high courts for transmitting the records of thecases pending before the respective high courts to Delhi High Court.

The order took on record the fact that the All Sikkim Cable Operators Association
had withdrawn from the High Court of Sikkim. The court also noted that one petitioner, JBM Cable Network, had refused to accept notice but this service would be considered sufficient. Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January written to its counsel in Punjab and Haryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.

Buit later, the ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one high court gives a stay, another high court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the high court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

Meanwhile, cases are pending in the high courts of Bombay, Hyderabad (with separate petitions for Telengana and Andhra Pradesh), Allahabad, Assam, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh for the entire states, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.
In Karnataka, three individual stakeholders have got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay.

The Bombay High Court had referred in its order to the argument by counsel that the Supreme Court in the Kusum Ingot case had said that if similar circumstances persist in other states, then they can pass an order similar to one passed by an earlier court.

April 20, 2016
HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: The registry of the Supreme Court has finally sent to all the concerned high courts the directive of the apex court for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions’.

Court registry officials told indiantelevision.com that the order of the apex court of early this month had been sent on 16 April. A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that court to fix a date.

The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various high courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.

Earlier, the apex court had accepted the plea of the central government that ‘it would be justand proper for this court to withdraw all those cases pending in different high courtsand transfer the same to Delhi High Court.’

In its order of 1 April, justices V Gopala Gowda and Arjun Mishra had said on the transfer petition filed by the central government that ‘in future, if any case on the same legalquestion is filed before the high court(s), such case(s) shall also be transferred to theDelhi High Court’.

The Supreme Court registry was directed to communicate the order tothe registrar general(s) of the respective high courts for transmitting the records of thecases pending before the respective high courts to Delhi High Court.

The order took on record the fact that the All Sikkim Cable Operators Association
had withdrawn from the High Court of Sikkim. The court also noted that one petitioner, JBM Cable Network, had refused to accept notice but this service would be considered sufficient. Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January written to its counsel in Punjab and Haryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.

Buit later, the ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one high court gives a stay, another high court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the high court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

Meanwhile, cases are pending in the high courts of Bombay, Hyderabad (with separate petitions for Telengana and Andhra Pradesh), Allahabad, Assam, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh for the entire states, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.
In Karnataka, three individual stakeholders have got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay.

The Bombay High Court had referred in its order to the argument by counsel that the Supreme Court in the Kusum Ingot case had said that if similar circumstances persist in other states, then they can pass an order similar to one passed by an earlier court.

April 20, 2016
Delhi HC examining if TDSAT had jurisdiction in giving parity to HITS with MSOs

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reserved its orders on whether the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) had the jurisdiction to ‘re-write the regulation’ by asking broadcasters to treat the headend in the sky (HITS) operator Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) at the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs).

Justice Rajiv Sahai End law passed the order on a petition by Star India arising out of a Tribunal judgment of 7 December, 2015.

The court also said that a directive by TDSAT of 18 December asking Star India and other broadcasters to produce the kind of agreements it had with Hathway, Den and SitiCable and listing the matter for 12 January would stand suspended until the outcome of the High Court case.

The Court heard arguments presented by Star India and NSTPL whose petition had been accepted on 7 December by the Tribunal, which had asked Star India and Taj TV to execute fresh agreements with NSTPL. However, TDSAT had kept the operation of the judgment pending till 31 March this year.

It had said that on past occasions it had made similar suggestions with the hope of nudging the Television Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the Regulations. At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia.

The Tribunal had, on 18 December, impleaded Zee Turner and others in another petition by Star India against NSTPL and asked the broadcasters to produce agreements between broadcasters and major MSOs. It opined that some agreements have to be suspended by Star and Taj TV.

January 8, 2016
Delhi HC adjourns ad cap case to 25 September

Updated: 03:46 PM

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court today once again adjourned – this time to 25 September – the final hearing of the bunch of petitions challenging the ad cap sort to be imposed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) as the authority has not finalised its rejoinder.

In any case, Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw also noted that the Court did not have sufficient hearing at present for a final hearing in view of the large pendency of other cases.

However, the assurance by TRAI given in an earlier hearing that it will not take any coercive action under the ad-cap regulations will continue.

However, the Court had said the petitioners have to submit a weekly report on the consumption of commercial airtime in a clock hour.

This matter had initially been filed before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) but fresh petitions were filed in the High Court after the Supreme Court ruled that TRAI regulations could not be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.

During the last hearing on 6 May, TRAI Counsel Saket Singh had said that the Cable TV Networks (Regulations) Rules of 1994 were clear about the ad cap and TRAI had only sought to implement that.

However, Neeraj Krishna Kaul who represented one of the petitioners – News Broadcasters Association – argued that the case involved important constitutional issues as there were cases where the freedom of the press and freedom of speech and expression are involved and the case cannot be decided without having all facts on record.

The case had been first heard in the High Court on 17 December last year and 13 March this year.

The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels.

Apart from the NBA, the petition have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamoru, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

The news and regional broadcasters fear that the capping of commercial airtime will curtail their ad revenues. They also argue that the ad cap must be brought only after the benefits of cable TV digitisation start kicking in.

Earlier this year, the Court had also granted interim relief to Hyderabad-based MAA Television Network against the ad cap regulation. However, the court had also observed that the cap on advertisements is a ‘reasonable exercise’.

Four major broadcast networks—Star India, Zee Entertainment, Multi Screen Media and TV18 Group—are following the regulations.

July 15, 2014