ITV

Tag: Delhi High Court

  • Kantar gets stay on cross-shareholding norms; TAM allowed to publish ratings

    Kantar gets stay on cross-shareholding norms; TAM allowed to publish ratings

    NEW DELHI:  Kantar Market Research Services has managed to get the relief it wanted from the Delhi High Court on the cross-shareholding norms for television rating agencies.

     

    On a petition by Kantar challenging the government’s cross-shareholding norms for TV ratings agencies, the HC has stayed the operation of four sections — 1.7a, 1.7d, 16.1 and 16.2 — that relate to cross-shareholdings and to publishing of TV viewership ratings  in the Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India.

     

    Kantar had filed the petition as the new policy would have resulted in TAM Media Research, a company it has jointly promoted with Nielsen India, having to shut operations.

     

    The court has given TAM two weeks to register itself under all the other provisions of the policy that was recently approved by the Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs and comes into effect from 15 February.

     

    In addition, the court has also stayed the operation of a clause that prevents existing TV rating agencies from publishing viewership ratings till they company with the provisions of the policy. TAM is the only company in India providing TV viewership ratings.

     

    The Delhi High Court will hear further arguments in the case on 6 March.

     

    Meanwhile, TAM has been ordered to place on its website the list of its shareholders and also the list of its clients.

     

    The provisions of Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India that have been stayed are:

     

    1.7 The company shall comply with the following cross holdings requirements.

     

     (a) No single company/ legal entity, either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings, shall have substantial equity holding in rating agencies and broadcasters/advertisers/ advertising agencies.

     

     (d) A promoter company/member of the board of directors of the rating agency cannot have stakes in any broadcaster/ advertiser/advertising agency either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings.

     

    16. PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING RATING AGENCIES

     

    16.1 These guidelines shall also be applicable to the existing rating agencies.

     

    16.2 No rating agency shall generate and publish ratings till such time that they comply with the provisions of these guidelines.

     

    Click here for the updated story

  • Kantar argues TV ratings regulation requires legislative action

    Kantar argues TV ratings regulation requires legislative action

    NEW DELHI: Kantar Market Research Services, a promoter of India’s only television ratings agency TAM Media Research, said today that any action relating to fundamental rights had to be done through an act of Parliament and not by an executive order.

     

    Harish Salve, counsel for Kantar, said during the hearing on his client’s petition in the Delhi High Court against regulations for television ratings agencies that the government should have issued an ordinance and then replaced it with an act of Parliament since any attempt to regulate television ratings agencies was tantamount to interfering with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Any order curtailing fundamental rights must have statutory backing, he claimed.

     

    He said even the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India which had earlier given a report on TV ratings in 2008 and the Parliamentary Standing Committee which had considered the issue later in the same year had been of the view that the government could not tamper with the content. In any case, Salve argued that TRAI was only concerned with carriage and not content and can only make recommendations.

     

    He wondered why the Government did not act after it received the TRAI report in 2008 to push through legislation on this issue.

     

    He said the executive order under Article 73 was part of the government’s agenda to push for control of content.
     

    He said there will be a complete blackout of television viewership ratings under new government regulations since the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) was still in the planning stage.
     

    He also said that the law was in any case clear that the government was a licensor for broadcasting and not TAM which was a private rating agency. As a private agency, it could not be told not to have cross-media holding.
     

    While still not granting a stay on the regulations that come into effect from 15 February, Justice Manmohan said he will continue hearing the case tomorrow but may consider ‘interim arrangements’ if the hearing lingers on.

     

    The Judge also asked Kantar to place on its website the shareholding pattern of various shareholders in TAM since the primary objection taken by Kantar is to the reference to cross-media holding in the proposed regulations.  

     

    The three respondents Union of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) have filed their affidavits and will present their views tomorrow on Kantar’s petition for an interim stay. 

     

    Salve, who concluded his arguments today, said Kantar did not have any cross-holding in the broadcasting sector. He claimed that TAM was operational in 37 countries.
     

    Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who also represented Kantar, said the committee that recommended BARC had itself admitted that TAM was the best rating agency in the country, and had not made any recommendations with regard to cross-media holdings.

     

    During the last hearing, the judge had wanted to know why TAM was not present itself, and Salve said that the issue of cross-media holdings mentioned in the guidelines affected Kantar which was a major shareholder and not TAM.

  • Delhi HC to further hear Kantar case tomorrow; hints at an interim arrangement

    Delhi HC to further hear Kantar case tomorrow; hints at an interim arrangement

    NEW DELHI: The deadline for implementing the TV ratings agencies policy is inching closer. But Kantar Market Research Services, a shareholder of current and only ratings agency TAM, had decided that it had to challenge the guidelines in the Delhi High Court.

     

    While still not giving it a stay order today, the court has decided that it will continue hearing the case. The next date of hearing is tomorrow. Kantar counsel today argued that the directive of the ministry on TV ratings guidelines had been done under an executive action, which can be questioned in a court of law. Counsel for Kantar also said that since the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) was still under formation, there would be a total blackout if TAM is not allowed to function.

     

    Justice Manmohan while hearing the case remarked that though he was in favour of concluding the hearing before 15 February, he would ‘consider issuing an interim arrangement if the hearing goes on longer than that date’. 15 February is when the guidelines will become effective.

     

    The three respondents Union of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) will present their case on Kantar’s petition for an interim stay order tomorrow. 

     

    Click here for the updated story

  • No stay order for Kantar for now: Delhi HC

    No stay order for Kantar for now: Delhi HC

    NEW DELHI: It was just a week ago that one of the shareholders of TAM – Kantar Market Research decided to move the High Court against the TV ratings guidelines. Now, as the case was taken up in the Delhi High Court today, the issue has become a little clearer.
     

    According to the HC, Kantar won’t get a stay order on the petition for now just because the deadline to make the TV ratings guidelines is effective from 15 February. However, Judge Manmohan said that Kantar’s case will be heard again on 11 February and a final decision will be taken then.
     

    Counsel for Kantar, Harish Salve argued that the stay order was necessary as the guidelines were not framed under any statute of law. Additional Solicitor General Rajeev Mehra, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, said that the guidelines had been recommended by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) which was a statutory body. The judge also remarked the same. Both Mehra and the counsel for TRAI accepted the notice and agreed to file their affidavits within time.

     

    The other big development in the case was the inclusion of the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) also coming as an intervener and joining the case as the third respondent apart from the Union of India and the TRAI. NBA counsel, A J Bhambhani pointed out that TAM only covered about 8000 homes in India, which doesn’t cover all the TV homes and thus isn’t a complete survey.
     

    Interestingly, the judge curious to know why instead of TAM approaching the court, a stakeholder Kantar has taken the step. To this, Salve said that the move was taken as Kantar is a major shareholder in TAM and the guideline related to cross holding affects Kantar and not TAM.

     

    Responding to a question posed by the judge, Salve said that TAM had nothing to gain by pushing up the TRPs. Its clients were advertisers and broadcasters and not the common viewer. Any rigs in ratings would be strongly protested against, he said. Salve also brought to the fore that regulations or guidelines need to be placed before the Parliament for approval.
     

    The case will now be heard once again on 11 February with Kantar fighting it out against the government, TRAI and the NBA.

     

     

  • TAM shareholder Kantar takes Indian govt to court on TV ratings guidelines

    TAM shareholder Kantar takes Indian govt to court on TV ratings guidelines

    MUMBAI: So Indian TV ratings agency TAM Media will not go down without a fight. At least if one goes by the action of one of its shareholders  Kantar Market Research Services. The latter approached the Delhi High Court on 20 January, filing a writ petition against the Union of India. The writ petition states that the government’s TV ratings agency registration regulations have put the existence of its venture TAM in jeopardy, and that too after it has been operating in India for more than 15 years.

    Diya Kapur, who appeared on behalf of Kantar – during the hearing today – appealed that TAM has been in the business for a very long time and the new guidelines on cross holding restrictions will mean that it will have to go out of business.

    Kantar Market Reserach Services Pvt Ltd, a shareholder of television rating agency TAM Media, was today directed by the Delhi High Court to file in a week an affidavit detailing its shareholding in any advertising/ broadcasting companies either directly or indirectly.

     

    A bench of justice Manmohan directed Kantar and its director Thomas Puliyel, who have challenged the guidelines for television rating agencies, to also mention “the Indian companies in which the petitoner (Kantar) holds shareholding.”

    High Court judge Justice Manmohan then asked Kantar to furnish documents relating to the shareholding pattern in TAM. “This would be in the form of an affidavit detailing its shareholding in any broadcasting firm/advertising agency, either directly or indirectly.The affidavit would also mention any other Indian company in which the petitioner holds any shareholding. It would also state that none of the aforesaid companies in which Kantar have shareholding in excess of 10 per cent has done business for any entity which was involved in any ratings exercise done by TAM. If that is not so, then the details of such instances shall be given,” the single member bench said.

    The court gave Kantar Media a week to come back with the documents and adjourned the hearing for 29 January.

    But already industry sources are questioning why did Kantar Market Research Services decide to approach the courts alone? Why did TAM Media not do so? And why did only one of the two shareholders seek legal redressal? Why wasn’t AC Nielsen also a party to the case against the Union of India?  These are questions to which indiantelevision.com has no answers to right now. But keep watching this space for further developments.

    Agencies and advertisers will be too. Various stakeholders – who need ratings to know how their money is being spent – have been urging TAM Media to take legal recourse as they are quite averse to a situation of a TV ratings dark period. But with now one of its stakeholders taking steps to try and remedy the situation, they have some hope.

    The ministry of information and broadcasting is quite clear that the course has been set and there is no going back. Speaking to indiantelevison.com MIB officials have been quite clear that they don’t want to be seen favouring anybody – especially TAM. “Industry and TAM have been given a long time to do course corrections on the ratings,” said a MIB official. “More than half a decade. Why did they not do so? Why complain now? In fact, we did not want a ratings blackout; based on industry feedback earlier – they had said BARC ratings would start rolling by March 2014 – we went easy on the TV ratings regulations and got government approval in mid-January 2014. TAM had 30 days to shape up; if it did not do so, then there would be a minimal rating blackout period, with BARC rolling out its ratings.”

    In fact, even as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had recommended a tranistion period of six months for TAM Media, the MIB had in its recommendations said zero days, but that was finally extended to 30 days by the Cabinet.

    The MIB has stated that it will take on any legal challenges, which are posed against the regulations.  Industry executives can expect some skirmishes ahead – at least in the courts.

     

  • DEN, Hathway and InCable get interim relief on ent tax

    DEN, Hathway and InCable get interim relief on ent tax

    MUMBAI: The big four  of Indian cable TV – DEN Networks, Hathway Cable and Datacom, InCable and Siti Cable – heaved a sigh of relief as 21 January ended. The reason: the Delhi High Court – which was hearing their appeal seeking to restrain the state government’s entertainment tax authorities from taking any coercive action against them for not paying entertainment tax – gave them relief, if at least for some time. The  HC passed an interim order, forbidding the tax folks  from taking any steps  against  three of the MSOs – Den, Hathway and InCable.

     

    The cases that were heard in one day saw the appeals of  DEN and Hathway being joined  together while InCable and Siti Cable presented its case separately.  With the order coming into effect, MSOs have been relieved of the duty of collecting entertainment tax from the LCOs and submitting it to the government till the judgment on the case is passed. The next hearing will be on 13 March.

     

    The respondent (the entertainment tax collection authorities) have been given four weeks to file its reply to the case. In the meanwhile, its hands are tied. However, what was not clear at the time of writing whether  the onus is back on the LCOs to pay the tax to the government.

     

    Although the MSOs are receiving the tax from LCOs, they claim they aren’t getting the full amount. Hence, the balance amount normally has to be coughed up by the MSO whether it is paid the same or not by the LCO. This is pretty unfair, they have stated.

     

    The  MSOs approached the Delhi HC as  the inexplicable  pressure was being thrust on them to cough up taxes.

  • Four national MSOs file writ petition against Ent Tax

    Four national MSOs file writ petition against Ent Tax

    MUMBAI: Entertainment tax has become a bothersome issue for both MSOs and LCOs. Right from the amount of tax levied to ownership of collection, state government mandates have got the two cable TV factions locking horns. While government regulations mandate MSOs to collect tax from the LCOs and submit it, the LCOs would rather take the onus on themselves.

     

    Four Indian national MSOs – Den, Hathway, Siticable and InCable have filed separate writ petitions in the Delhi HC to challenge several aspects of the entertainment tax being imposed as well as the tax collecting authority’s stance towards the MSOs in the state of Delhi.  The cases are all set to be heard today in a joint hearing.

     

    While Hathway Cable & Datacom was put through an enquiry on its own premises, others have decided to legally protect themselves before something similar happens to them. Siticable claims that it has been fulfilling all duties effectively. An ex parte order was taken out against it for non compliance in April and May 2013 which Siticable had appealed against. When that didn’t go very far, it decided to lodge its writ petition seeking redressal and  justice.

     

    Siticable’s first hearing was yesterday when the lawyer on behalf of the tax authority asked for a day’s time to come up with its side of the case. “We had deposited the tax and had also filled the form 10 as per requirements. Yet the authorities were after us. So we went to court to request that no coercive action be taken by them ,” says Siticable CFO Sanjay Goyal.

     

    Hathway is of the opinion that entertainment tax collection is a duty that has been undertaken by the LCOs for several years now and that is how it should be. Its writ petition states that the order passed against it was unreasonable.

     

    MSOs say that they are alright with collecting the tax and passing it on to the department but traditionally it had been the job of the LCO to do that. However, in case of  a lapse of payment by the LCO, the MSO should not be asked to cough up the remaining money is what they say.

     

    The case will come up for hearing today. Who knows whether the Delhi High Court will give a stay order or decide on its fate tomorrow itself.

  • Delhi High Court dismisses plea seeking ban on movie ‘Ram-Leela’

    Delhi High Court dismisses plea seeking ban on movie ‘Ram-Leela’

    Even as the Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a ban on the release of the movie Ram-Leela on the ground that it would hurt the religious sentiments of people, a review petition is coming up on this issue in the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court later this week.

     

    A division bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justice Manmohan of Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on NGO Rashtravadi Shiv Sena which filed the plea wanting a change of title of the movie starring Ranveer Singh and Deepika Padukone should be changed as it hurts the religious sentiments of people.

     

    (The Allahabad High Court had earlier rejected a similar petition by social activist Nutan Thakur on the ground that the film had not been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification. However, Thakur has filed a review on the plea that the trailer has been passed by the CBFC.)

     

    Ram-Leela, which is scheduled to be released on 15 November, has been directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali.

     

    The plea in Delhi filed by the NGO’s president Jai Bhagwan Goyal said: “The title Ram-Leela which is understood by Hindus as enactment of the life and story of Lord Ram (Maryada Purshottam), is nowhere doing the same but on the contrary the film is portraying sex, violence and vulgarity, which is deeply hurting the religious sentiments and feelings of Hindus.”

     

    “The enactment, production and scheduled release of the film Ram-Leela is a gross insult to the religious feelings of Hindus,” the plea said, adding the objection is only in respect of naming such a film Ram-Leela.

  • Idea, CricBuzz & OnMobile see ‘Stars’

    Idea, CricBuzz & OnMobile see ‘Stars’

    MUMBAI: Looks like Star India is having the last laugh in an ongoing legal battle with mobile service operators and MVAS providers – Idea Cellular, Akuate Internet (Cricbuzz) and OnMobile Global.

     

    In a significant ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld Star India’s claim to mobile and digital rights for cricket matches and asked the defendants to maintain status quo as on 13 March. The apex court directed Idea Cellular, Cricbuzz and OnMobile Global to deposit Rs 10 lakh per cricket match in the court, before disseminating live scores, while clarifying that a match would include a test match, a one-day match as well as a T-20 match. This money won’t flow to Star India but will go to the court until the matter is decided.

     

    The Supreme Court also directed the firms disseminating live alerts to maintain true and lawful accounts of the receipts in respect of the SMS alerts they provide to their subscribers, with the same to be made available to the court on a monthly basis.

     

    The Supreme Court didn’t take into consideration an earlier order of a divisional bench of the Delhi High Court that ruled against Star India’s stand. The apex court on 30 September saw merit in Star India’s argument and asked the parties to maintain status quo as on 13 March, when a single bench of the Delhi High Court had ruled in favour of Star India.

     

    It all began last year when Star India filed a case against CricBuzz and OnMobile Global over the reporting of cricket scores. Initially, the Delhi High Court ordered CricBuzz and OnMobile Global to deposit Rs 15 lakh per match, apart from maintaining statements of accounts and filing them in court. Earlier this month though, a division bench of the High Court ruled that mobile operators, content aggregators and other entities were free to provide SMS alerts and ball-by-ball commentary.

     

    The HC bench arrived at this decision after taking into consideration the right to freedom of speech as also the concept of ‘hot news’ which means that Star’s rights to report information (read: scores) via mobile – licensed from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) – are ‘exclusive’ only till such time as the news (read: scores) is ‘hot’ or in other words ‘fresh’.

     

    A critical statement in the Delhi HC judgment read: “Neither Star nor BCCI can be permitted to say that mentioning ‘mobile’ rights and auctioning them, would ipso facto legitimise the parceling away of right to disseminate information, without first establishing that the right or exclusive domain over such rights existed in the first instance.”

     

    In the wake of the HC decision, Star was left with little option but to appeal to the Supreme Court.

     

    And now that the apex body has upheld Star’s position on mobile and digital rights, Star India president – sports Nitin Kukreja says: “The interim order is a testament to the fact that the honourable Supreme Court sees merit in Star India’s argument on mobile and digital rights. We have always maintained that lack of clarity on digital rights has been severely compromising the ability of rights/event owners to invest in creating great experiences for sports fans. This clarity is essential for event owners, who put in all the effort and investment in creating/setting up these exclusive properties to monetise untapped/new revenue streams, which but for the lack of clarity/legislation, would have accrued to them in the natural course of matters.”

     

    As things stand, Star is the clear winner but only time will tell if all the back and forth was worth it.

  • Delhi HC accepts Prasar Bharatis plea for clean feed of sports signals

    Delhi HC accepts Prasar Bharatis plea for clean feed of sports signals

    NEW DELHI: Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justice Pradeep Nandrajog of the Delhi High Court have said that any channel telecasting a live television broadcast of sporting events of national importance must share the same with national broadcaster Doordarshan without any commercials.

     

    Upholding Prasar Bharati’s view, the Court made the observations while dismissing ESPN’s plea seeking a direction to Prasar Bharati not to insist on the live signal of international cricket matches of India without any commercials. “We find no merit in the writ petition which we dismiss but without any order as to costs.”

     

    Prasar Bharati had on 6 April told ESPN that “it is not in a position to share the live signals which are not clean” and insisted that the channel provide the feed of the matches without any commercials.

     

    Filing a petition before the High Court, ESPN had claimed to be the exclusive distributor of cricket matches of national importance. Furthermore, it said as a matter of practice it had offered the live signals of several matches with commercials as mandated by the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act 2007 and relevant rules, but the pubcaster had imposed a condition relating to clean feed.

     

    Seeking the court’s intervention, the channel had said, “Refusal of the respondent to accept the feed has resulted in a stalemate or impasse which may deprive millions of viewers of watching the international cricket tournaments.”

    ESPN had argued that it did not have control over the “Commercial inserts” that were attached to the feed received by it from the event organisers. ESPN had further argued that its “obligation under the law was to share the live broadcast signal as it was received” by it from the sporting event organiser; and since the feed received by it contain certain advertisements by the organiser of the sporting event, their obligation were limited to share the signal as it is.