Tag: High Court

  • NBF hails Supreme Court of India upholding human liberty

    NBF hails Supreme Court of India upholding human liberty

    New Delhi: The News Broadcasters Federation hails supreme court of India, upholding sacrosanct principle of human liberty in its judgement providing interim relief to Arnab Goswami, MD and editor in chief of Republic Media Network.

    The apex court in its judgement explained that the writ of liberty runs through the fabrics of constitution of India, while highlighting the role and constitutional duty of high court and sub-ordinate courts to protect the citizens from the misuse of criminal law and authority. “Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many” the court had observed.

    NBF herein reiterates and urges the government of India to immediately setup and independent neutral national agency to investigate into any allegations of professional misconduct by the journalists, executives and owners of the media company, in order to prevent selective harassment by the state authority and ensure freedom of press.

    NBF is the most democratic and largest congregation of news broadcasters across the country, striving for the best interest – editorial and business – of news TV channels.

    NBF counts Dighvijay, DY365 News, First India Rajasthan, Gulistan News, IBC24, India News, JK 24*7, Living India News, News Live, News Nation, NewsX, North East Live, Odisha TV, Prag News, MH One News, PuthiyaThalaimurai TV, Republic TV, Republic Bharat, Newsfirst Kannada, S Newz, TV5, and Twenty Four News among its members. 

  • Bollywood associations & producers file legal suits against Times Now & Republic TV

    Bollywood associations & producers file legal suits against Times Now & Republic TV

    NEW DELHI: The trouble surrounding the nation’s news broadcasting industry does not seem to be dying down. Last week, a few channels got embroiled in the TRP manipulation scandal, and now the Indian film fraternity appears to have joined forces against them.

    Four Bollywood industry associations and 34 leading film producers have filed a civil suit before the Delhi High Court against Republic TV’s Arnab Goswami and Pradeep Bhandari, and Times Now’s Rahul Shivshankar and Navika Kumar, on their coverage of the drugs probe being carried out by the Narcotics Control Bureau in connection with the Sushant Singh Rajput death case.

    The suit urges the court to restrain these channels – along with their editors and journalists – from making “irresponsible, derogatory and defamatory remarks” against Bollywood and the members of the film fraternity. 

    The producers have taken exception to several derogatory phrases used during the coverage such as ‘dirt,’ ‘filth,’ ‘scum,’ ‘druggies’ and expressions such as ‘it is Bollywood where the dirt needs to be cleaned,’ ‘all the perfumes of Arabia cannot take away the stench and the stink of this filth and scum of the underbelly of Bollywood,’ ‘This is the dirtiest industry in the country,’ and ‘cocaine and LSD drenched Bollywood’.

    The suit states, "The livelihood of persons associated with Bollywood is being severely impacted by the smear campaign being run by the Defendants. This is in addition to the ongoing pandemic which has resulted in extreme revenues and work opportunity loss. The privacy of the members of Bollywood is being invaded, and their reputations are being irreparably damaged by painting the entire Bollywood as criminals, seeped in drug culture, and making being part of Bollywood as synonymous with criminal acts in the public imagination."

    In their plea, the producers have asked Delhi High Court to pass directions ordering Times Now and Republic TV to withdraw, recall and take down all the defamatory content published by them against Bollywood. The suit also seeks that the channels and the four people mentioned abide by the provisions of the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.

    While the producers don't call for blanket media gag in the Sushant Singh Rajput investigation, they want the court to stop reportage that violates the law. The suit further asks the channels not to conduct media trials of Bollywood personalities and to stop interfering with the privacy of those associated with Bollywood.

    Reacting to the lawsuit, Times Now news editor Rahul Shivshankar said in a tweet that filing cases against journalists "that have only sought justice for those who are wronged" would set a bad precedent.

     

     

    Navika Kumar also took to Twitter, saying: "All the A-listers can come together but India will continue to fight for the truth. You can’t intimidate us."

     

     

  • NTO 2.0 will not have much impact at consumer level: Shaji Mathews

    NTO 2.0 will not have much impact at consumer level: Shaji Mathews

    MUMBAI: Even as stakeholders have moved courts against Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) amendment of the New Tariff Order (NTO), analyst and consultant Shaji Mathews feels that it will not have any significant effect on the existing system. “I don’t think NTO 2.0 will have much effect on the consumer either, because whatever changes and choices consumers were to make, happened during the NTO 1.0 implementation. Once the legal battle on NTO 2.0 is over, the MSOs will implement it at the consumer level with cautiousness. They won’t disrupt the system,” says Mathews, who previously held positions as the VP of Star TV, COO of GTPL and CEO of KCCL.   

    According to him, NTO 1.0 was expected to remove discriminatory agreements which were imposed by broadcasters and create a level-playing field for small MSOs as well. “For that TRAI brought in the MRP regime, which was uniform pricing across the country for the consumers and transparent margins for the distribution platforms, whether they are small or big,” he says. It was expected that the MRP system will push broadcasters to bring consumer-friendly pricing, enabling consumers to avail a multitude of channels of their liking within the rates they were paying.

    “In the process, what happened was that consumers who were expecting to go a-la-carte found themselves at the receiving end because broadcasters basically priced the channels in such a way that they can defeat the whole purpose of the NTO itself,” he points out. 

    Now, by bringing in MRP regime, TRAI is expected to make it easy for consumers to choose channels based on prices.

    It also brought in certain regulations, on bouquet pricing, that the discount in pricing should not be more than 15 per cent. But while implementing, that was removed from the regulation and was kept in abeyance because of the remark of the Madras High Court. However, in the legal battle at Supreme Court, the remark made by the SC prompted the regulator to go approach the Supreme Court for a decision on the 15 per cent. But the apex court threw it back to TRAI and asked it to take steps which were within TRAI’s powers.

    In that scenario, he says that TRAI had to come out with NTO 2.0 wherein some regulations related to a-la-carte rate and bouquet rate had to have interlinked logics. And TRAI stepped in to clear the anomalies which were there in NTO 1.0.

    According to him, the consumers are not bothered about all these things. They want convenience. “I don’t share the views of TRAI and many other stakeholders that the consumer is so bothered about his freedom to choose on an a-la-carte basis. There are 800 channels in this country. In the NTO 1.0 regime, when broadcasters brought out the bouquets, there was no limit on the number of bouquets you could make. There were about 500 packages to choose from, and the consumers were frustrated. There is no point in forcing a-la-carte on consumers; they don’t really bother about whether it is a-la-carte or bouquet. They are bothered only about convenience, getting to watch their favourite channels, and they don’t want to pay too much. All these three were disrupted by the NTO. The consumer was not in a position to choose from too many packages and too many a-la-carte options.”

    Broadcasters, on their part, jacked up the prices, he said. All these went against the consumer requirements, resulting in a lot of them reducing their stickiness to watching TV. According to him, the cable industry lost around 10 to 15 per cent subscribers because of NTO.

    “It is not necessary that these consumers migrated to DTH. They did not go to OTT or YouTube, either. In fact, a lot of consumers did not go anywhere. They may come back to the system over a period of time. They have other priorities in life. They were like, let it be. That was the effect of NTO,” says Mathews. 

    He is certain that there won’t be much of a change in the case of NTO 2.0.

    “What I expect is that broadcasters will come out with revised prices. Having learned lessons from the implementation of the NTO, MSOs will not disrupt the system this time. If broadcasters reduce the prices, I think MSOs will give more channels to the consumers for the same price.  I don’t see the possibility of broadcasters increasing the prices, except in one or two cases. Some of the broadcasters are very aggressive in their stand. As regulator has come up with the Rs 12 pricing cap, some aggressive broadcasters might remove their channels from the bouquet,” he explains.

    Asked about the broadcasters’ complaint that their freedom to price has been curtailed by the NTO, he said: “Their freedom to price is there; only their freedom to bundle has been restricted. Their charges with regard to the loss of control over the pricing won’t stand. Broadcasters are making a fuss on this because it is their strategy of ensuring that the outcomes are advantageous for them.”

    On the question of TRAI’s authority to fix price cap, Mathews answers that the cap is only on the bundled channels, not on any other channels.

    He is also sure that none of the distribution platforms will create any disruptions under the NTO 2.0 regime. According to him, during NTO 1.0 the platforms went a little overboard in implementation. “So this time they will definitely not do anything disruptive. They will proceed cautiously. There will not have the same kind of disruption as we witnessed during NTO 1.0,” he states.

  • Delhi HC directs TRAI to explain changes in tariff order implementation

    Delhi HC directs TRAI to explain changes in tariff order implementation

    MUMBAI: Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Rajendra Menon on Wednesday questioned the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) for altering the implementation process of its new tariff regime without informing the court. The chairperson of the sector regulator has now been directed to file an affidavit within a week explaining these changes.

    Though some felt it’s a procedural matter, sources in the government opined situation is not as bad for the regulator as a section of the industry would like to make it out. Refusing to be identified or named, a source in the government said there were some hiccups in the transition process as it’s a mammoth process involving millions of households, but TRAI’s reply to the court, as directed, would address the issues adequately.

    The TRAI on Tuesday had extended the deadline for consumers to select television channels under its new tariff regime till 31 March 2019. The subscribers that don’t opt for new channels would be moved to ‘Best Fit Plans’, which would be developed as per usage pattern, language and channel popularity, the sector regulator said in its press note. The regulator’s main premise was that consumers should not be inconvenienced, especially those in far-flung areas and without modern techs as running internet, with the changes being sought to be implemented.

    On Wednesday, Gopal Jain, arguing on behalf of Discovery India Communication, questioned the basis (and permission) on which the regulator filed its voluminous affidavit (running into 500 pages) on 6 February 2019 after the last hearing in the matter.

    Jain also brought to the court’s notice Tuesday’s TRAI press note, which, he said could have a bearing on the case.

    Jain also highlighted the difference between the over 500 pages that were annexed to the TRAI affidavit, which talked about consumer choice, and the press note (on Tuesday) that seems to shift choice in the hands of the DPOs, a proposition that is antithetical in nature.

    In the absence of a senior counsel, TRAI sought time from the court after the chief justice asked for an explanation on the same.

    While the case was adjourned to 21 February, the court wants the TRAI chairperson to file an affidavit stating on what basis (and whose permission) the initial affidavit was filed.

    What the court also wants the TRAI to explain is the correlation between the affidavit which talks only about consumer choice and the press note which gives the choice in the hands of the DPOs.

  • Delhi HC dismisses PIL on OTT content regulation

    Delhi HC dismisses PIL on OTT content regulation

    MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea that sought for framing of guidelines for the working of OTT platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Hotstar, according to a Press Trust of India report.

    The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting told the bench that online platforms do not need a licence to operate after which the petition was rejected.

    According to a PTI report, the petitioner NGO Justice for Rights Foundation claimed that the platforms show "uncertified, sexually explicit and vulgar" content that aren't for for public viewing. It mentioned shoes like Sacred Games, Game of Thrones and Spartacus as having vulgar, profane, sexually explicit, pornographic, morally unethical and virulent content which often objectify women.

    The petitioner also wanted the court to get the ministries to frame guidelines for the platforms and their content and even make them remove such restricted content.

  • Bombay, Telangana HCs yet to decide on TRAI tariff cases

    Bombay, Telangana HCs yet to decide on TRAI tariff cases

    MUMBAI: Cases have been filed in various courts across the country and while the Calcutta High Court has vacated the stay on the case and the Gujarat High Court has asked for a response from TRAI, the Bombay and Telangana courts are yet to decide on similar petitions.

    The Telangana HC reserved judgment on a case filed by local cable operators who said that the regulations are arbitrary. The Pune Cable Operators Association went ahead and challenged TRAI as well, asking for a stay on the lines of the Calcutta High Court order. The bench, however, asked them to submit a copy of the order and refused to provide relief.

    The Madras High Court dismissed the PIL against the TRAI tariff order last week by quoting the Supreme Court judgment that went in favour of the regulator late last year.

    On 14 January, a similar case before the Kerala High Court was also dismissed which related to the revenue sharing aspect as well.

    LCOs all over the country are up in arms against some suggestions that have been made in the new tariff regime by TRAI that came into effect from 1 February. After TRAI won the case against Star India in October, the regulator gave the industry time till December end to put things into action. This was later extended to 31 January which was confirmed to the last date and no more extensions would be granted beyond that.

    Two days ago, TRAI claimed that all the stakeholders were ready with the new regime’s requirements. It also praised itself for ensuring that a large number of customers had exercised their options.

  • Gujarat HC issues notice to TRAI over MSO-LCO profit sharing

    Gujarat HC issues notice to TRAI over MSO-LCO profit sharing

    MUMBAI: The Gujarat High Court issued a notice to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the centre on 1 February 2019, over a petition filed by local cable operators (LCOs) challenging the decision to fix the ratio of profit sharing between LCOs and multi-system operators (MSOs).

    In 2017, TRAI issued a notification fixing the ratio of sharing of service charges collected towards cable connections at 55:45 between MSOs and LCOs. This was done by inserting clause 12(7) in the Telecommunications (broadcasting & cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations.

    A bench headed by acting chief justice A S Dave has sought reply from the authorities and posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.

    The Cable Operators Association Of Gujarat filed the petition through advocate Pratik Jasani challenging the insertion of the clause, fixing the revenue sharing between MSOs and LCOs. The cable operators have urged the HC to quash the arrangement before implementation of the 2017 notification, though the government consulted other stakeholders.

  • SC stays J&K HC order to not prohibit outside food in theatre

    SC stays J&K HC order to not prohibit outside food in theatre

    MUMBAI: The Supreme Court has stayed a direction issued by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to the multiplexes/cinema hall owners of the state not to prohibit cinema goers/viewers from carrying their own food articles and water inside the theatre, as per a report by the Indian Express.

    The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir passed the order on 18 July 2018 after which the Multiplex Association of India (MAI) filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India against the same.

    The matter was listed for hearing on 10 August 2018, before a bench comprising of justice R F Nariman and justice Indu Malhotra with senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi representing the MAI.

    MAI president Deepak Asher said “We are satisfied by the interim direction of the Supreme Court of India, staying the above order of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. We have always maintained that allowing patrons to bring in their own food and beverages inside cinema theatres, besides infringing upon the fundamental rights of multiplex and cinema operators to carry on business, and being violative of the contractual agreement between the patron and the cinema operator, has serious implications for safety and security, as well as health and hygiene. The stay granted by the Supreme Court reinforces the established business practice followed by cinemas across the world and also similar practices followed by other establishments and businesses like amusement parks, entertainment centres, sports stadia, restaurants, hotels, etc.”

    In addition, two other special leave petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of India by G S Malls Private Ltd and KC Theatre against the same order passed by the High Court, which were also heard along with the petition filed on behalf of MAI. Senior counsel Abhishek Singhvi represented G S Malls. A similar order has been passed in these two petitions as well.

  • HC orders stay on MIB’s licence cancellation directive to Alliance Broadcasting

    HC orders stay on MIB’s licence cancellation directive to Alliance Broadcasting

    MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court has ordered a stay on a Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) directive to a channel where it had withdrawn the channel’s licence stating that it lacked security clearance.

    Alliance Broadcasting had taken MIB to court for the issue since stating that since its security clearance had been withdrawn by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), it was liable to have its licence taken away. It even rejected its application to extend the renewal for 10 years. Further responses on this case have been sought from the MHA and MIB.

    The channel got its licence in 2007 when it was known as Real Estate and in 2014 it rebranded to News7 Tamil. Since then, the channel has maintained its reputation and had even given the required annual licence fee. In November 2017, MIB issued a show cause notice to it. After a joint hearing, the MIB ordered cancellation of its licence due to lack of security clearance certificate.

    While approaching the court, it not only wanted to overturn this but also get its extension of 10 years. It even wants the MHA to disclose the reasons for which its security clearance was rejected.

  • MIB recants, says only explicit condom ads banned during the day

    MIB recants, says only explicit condom ads banned during the day

    MUMBAI: After stirring the hornet’s nest on the contentious issue of restricting condom ads to only water-shedding hours, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has clarified that such ads can be aired on TV during daytime. 

    In an advisory earlier this month, the MIB had asked all TV channels to air condom advertisements only between 10pm to 6am to avoid exposure of such material to children.

    But in a clarification dated 21 December 2017, the ministry said the ban on condom advertisements during daytime applies only to commercials that have sexually explicit content.

    In a release, the ministry quoted that “advertisements that do not sexually objectify women and are aimed at informing citizens regarding devices/products/medical interventions to ensure safe sex are not covered under the said advisory.”

    The ministry had earlier stated that it had taken note of objections regarding condom ads that are “targeted at a particular age group” being aired on some channels that are considered as ‘indecent especially for children.’ It used Rule 7 (7) and Rule 7 (8) of the Cable TV Networks Rules, 1994 to tell broadcasters to refrain from telecasting ads of condoms that could be considered inappropriate/indecent for viewing by children. 

    The relaxation on the issue came after the Rajasthan high court issued a notice to the Centre challenging an advisory of the MIB barring TV channels from showing condom ads during prime time.

    The petition underlined the fact that condom ads don’t violate Rule 7 of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 which apply to anything which endangers the safety of children or create in them any interest in unhealthy practices or shows them begging or in an undignified or indecent manner. 

    The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) had approached the ministry earlier this month for guidance after several people complained regarding the inappropriate nature of the condom ads being telecast during primetime viewing on most channels. 

    Also Read:

    I&B tightens up on condom ads on TV

    ‘Sanskari’ India wants condom ads off primetime

    MIB categorises all non-Hindi and non-Eng TV channels as regional