ITV

Tag: High Court

  • High Court muzzles media against sexual harassment case against ex-judge

    High Court muzzles media against sexual harassment case against ex-judge

    NEW DELHI: In a directive that has not been taken kindly by the media, the Delhi High Court yesterday restrained the media from publishing and telecasting the contents of the law intern’s complaint of sexual harassment against former Supreme Court judge Justice Swatanter Kumar.

     

    Ordering deletion of alleged defamatory parts of the news items and the photograph of Justice Kumar within 24 hours, Justice Manmohan Singh, in his interim order, also asked the media not to carry the photographs of Justice Kumar, who is also the National Green Tribunal Chairperson in their future news reports.

     

    “The defendants number 1 to 5 (media houses and the law intern) are further restrained from telecasting and printing the photograph of the plaintiff (Justice Kumar),” the judge said while pronouncing the order in a packed court room.

     

    Interestingly, the Court order came a day after the Supreme Court issued notice to Justice Kumar on a petition filed by the law intern.

     

    The High Court also made it clear that its order will remain effective till 24 February, the next date of hearing, and issued notices to the woman intern, two English news channels, and a leading English daily.

     

    The court had earlier reserved its interim order on the plea of Justice Kumar seeking to restrain media from reporting, publishing or telecasting news relating to the law intern’s complaint against the judge, saying only court proceedings can be reported “nothing more, nothing less”.

     

    The plea had also sought a ban on repeat of the television programmes on the subject.

    Justice Kumar has also demanded Rs. 5 crore as damages from the law intern, who made the allegation against him, and three media groups that publicised her complaint.

    Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the former judge, had said Justice Kumar has an “illustrious career spanning 43 years in the legal field as a lawyer and as a high court and the Supreme Court Judge and more over, his fundamental right of good name and reputation cannot be allowed to be blackened by the media.”

     

    The petition has also said, “pass a decree for damages in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant number 1 to 5 jointly and severally at least for an amount of Rs 5 crore only or for any higher amounts as this court may be pleased to determine…”

  • Tamil Nadu & DAS: Arasu issues notice against MediaPro

    Tamil Nadu & DAS: Arasu issues notice against MediaPro

    BENGALURU:  Even as the Madras High Court has warned the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) not to take any coercive actions against Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation (TACTV), the latter has taken steps to protect its interests in the state. 

    The government owned MSO issued a public notice on 25 December, cautioning subscribers that the channels under MediaPro Enterprises India (MediaPro) would be disconnected 21 days after the issue of the notice.

    Arasu has a presence in 27 districts in Tamil Nadu, having leased the headends of private MSOs there. 

    The public notice states that the MSO has decided to take this action as the aggregator is in breach of letter of acceptance and non-conclusion of price negotiation between the two.  It warns subscribers and LCOs that they may not be able to view the channels on their TV sets 21 days from the date of publication of the notice. However, the MSO informs its subscribers and LCOs that alternate channels will be available for viewing in place of these 59 channels.

    The notice has been issued under section 4.2 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004.

    Unconfirmed reports allege that TNACTV has been arm twisting pay channel broadcasters and distributors to pay carriage fees to make up a for a mismatch of revenue and payouts to pay channels  of about 40 percent. According to TRAI, Arasu Cable, that is still delivering its services on analogue, has about 6 million subscribers under it in Tamil Nadu making up for a huge chunk of the 13 million cable TV homes in the state.

    MediaPro was unavailable for comment at the time of filing this report. There are 59 channels listed including Star Vijay, Zee Tamizh, Asianet, Asianet Plus and several other Hindi, English and regional channels from the Star and Zee stable which MediaPro distributes. 

    Whether the impact of Arasu clipping Mediapro will be heavy or not, nobody is willing to bet. However, prima facie the channels which would be impacted would be the English entertainment and movie channels, Zee Tamizh, Star Vijay, Asianet, and to a certain extent the kids, sports, news and factual entertainment channels which go to form the Mediapro  bouquet  However, the main drivers of the bouquet Zee TV and Star Plus would be impacted marginally, since Hindi is not a preferred viewing option in Tamil Nadu. 

  • The SC court judgement & TDSAT’s powers

    The SC court judgement & TDSAT’s powers

    MUMBAI: The broadcasting industry that has been fiercely fighting the ad cap regulation by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) got a jolt last Friday when the news emerged  that the Supreme Court, in a separate case, had declared that the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) does not have power to deal with appeals over regulations framed by the authority.

    The judgment in BSNL vs TRAI and others case came out on the Supreme Court web site today. It had some crucial points regarding what can be termed as ‘regulations’ and whether TDSAT has the authority to hear appeals against them. 

    According to the judgment, the powers under Section 36 of the TRAI act are legislative and not administrative and by virtue of Section 37 of the Act, they are at par with rules framed by the Central Government thereby mandating them to be laid before both houses of Parliament. Thereafter, Parliament has the power to annul or modify the same. But there is ambiguity on what happens if it is not laid in parliament. Does it stand void? Or can it still be taken as a regulation?

    The bench stated that ‘the Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires (read: powers) of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court’ meaning that they cannot hear cases which go into legislative laws.  Although the Tribunal will have the power to test the vire of subordinate legislation the exception would be questions regarding the vires of its parent statute. ‘A Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional’ reads the judgment.

    This makes the Tribunal incapable of deciding the fate of the ad cap case as it is a challenge to the validity of one of its parent statute.  

    The TRAI Act, amended in the year 2000 brought judicial functions under the TDSAT and kept the legislative and administrative powers under the regulator.

    The BSNL vs TRAI and others case verdict states: ‘In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 14(b) of the Act, TDSAT does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the regulations framed by the Authority under Section 36 of the Act.”

    Now, if anyone wants to challenge the validity of the regulation framed under section 36, such as the ad cap regulation, the party has to file a petition before the High Court and not TDSAT. However, cases regarding the application of a regulation can still be taken to the TDSAT.

     

    The ad cap regulation that has been challenged by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and others has now come under a cloud. The contention of the broadcasters is that regulation is not valid and TRAI does not have the authority to regulate content, let alone prosecute it. However, the TRAI claims that advertisements form a part of content and by the contract between licensor and licensee; it had come out with the Standards of Quality of service (Duration of advertisements in TV channels) (amendment) regulation 2013 under section 36 and section 11 of the TRAI act.

    The judgement in the case has been reserved and according to lawyers from both sides, TDSAT will have to take into consideration this SC verdict and then give its final verdict on the case. Legally speaking, TRAI says it came out with an ad cap ‘regulation’ but the NBA says that TRAI has not fulfilled the laying requirement.

    If the TDSAT’s verdict says that the case is dismissed then the next step for the NBA would be to challenge TRAI in the High Court, which seems to be most likely one. 

    But it could also lead to some furrowed brows amongst the TV channel executives as  the stay order on TRAI not to take any coercive actions against channels that are not following the ad cap would be annulled and from then till the time the HC does not give a stay, TRAI could go back to taking its aggressive stance against broadcasters

    Click here for the Supreme Court Verdict

  • Ad cap dispute to move to High Court?

    Ad cap dispute to move to High Court?

    MUMBAI: Its wings have been clipped. If one goes by the decision of the Supreme Court announced yesterday, all appeals against regulations set by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) will now be dealt with in the various High Courts, not by the Telecom Disputes and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

    TRAI has since 2010 been contending that TDSAT cannot hear appeals against its regulations, only those against its directions, decisions or orders. And yesterday a bench of the Supreme Court ruled in its favour.

    The authority normally sets regulations on issues such as rates, inter-connection and quality of service. TDSAT, TRAI states, was set up to adjudicate any dispute between a licensor and a licensee, between two or more service providers, between a service provider and a group of consumers, and to hear and dispose appeals against a direction, decision or order of TRAI.

    This is clearly set to have an impact on the course of the ad cap regulation set by the TRAI, which the TDSAT is set to adjudicate upon, following hearings involving broadcasters’ and the regulator’s lawyers. Broadcasters have been stating that the TRAI-mandated ad cap is going to have a detrimental impact on their business and the argument has been on whether it is in the form of a direction or a regulation. The stance of the TRAI has been that what it has issued is a regulation and not a direction under the quality of service, keeping in mind the interests of consumers.

    Observers expect the ad cap hearing to now move to the High Court. Other cases that will be impacted included the VAS regulation which has crippled the VAS industry but was issued by the TRAI keeping in mind consumer interest.

    The background of the Supreme Court ruling is that over the years several appeals have been filed with it by telcos such as Bharat Sanchar Nigam , Cellular Operators Association of India, Tata Teleservices and Reliance Infocomm against TDSAT orders involving regulations set by TRAI. And the TRAI had itself filed a petition in the Supreme Court in 2010 against a TDSAT order which had asked the authority to take a fresh look at the telecommunication interconnection (port charges) Amendment regulation 2007 after Bharat Sanchar Nigam had filed an appeal against it.

     

    TRAI had under that regulation reduced port charges by about 23 to 29 per cent on various slabs.

    TRAI had petitioned in the Supreme Court that TDSAT can only decide against any direction, decision or order passed by the TRAI, and not its regulations. And yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court clearly indicates where the law of the land lies.

  • TRAI ad cap: Broadcasters move Delhi High Court

    TRAI ad cap: Broadcasters move Delhi High Court

    MUMBAI: The 12 minute ad cap case has had a change in venue – from the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to the Delhi High Court (HC). With the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that TDSAT does not have authority to hear cases challenging the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regulations, broadcasters had filed a writ petition in the HC last Friday.

    The case is set to be heard on 17 December in the Delhi HC by Justice Manmohan. The appellants include the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), 9X Media, B4U, TV Vision, Sun TV, E24 and Pioneer Channel. The hearing for the case is set to begin afresh but the priority of the lawyers representing the broadcasters will be to get a stay order from the HC to disallow the TRAI from taking any coercive action against channels which are reportedly not following the 12 minute ad cap. Under the TRAI mandate, it can persecute channels who do not toe the line that it has set.

    “We will ask for a stay order on TRAI taking any punitive actions against broadcasters. Since the TDSAT had given a stay order earlier and the bench was headed by a SC judge Justice Aftab Alam, we hope we get it from the HC too,” says a senior executive.

    The case will by and large remain the same with the focus on the fact that the ad cap is not a regulation at all. However, since it is now the HC, the crux of the arguments will be on constitutional grounds such as Article 14 and Article 19 that talks about the right to equality and freedom of speech respectively.

    The channels will now have to go through the long drawn process of the hearing proceeding in the HC and getting the stay order against the regulator taking them to the cleaners for violation of the ad cao reglation. They have been fortunate not to have got the stick so far from the TRAI which could have prosecuted them as it was within its rights to do so.

  • Close Trai Ad cap: Broadcasters get respite from Delhi High Court

    Close Trai Ad cap: Broadcasters get respite from Delhi High Court

    MUMBAI: The Indian broadcasting community has got a respite on the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) ad cap case. The Delhi High Court today granted an interim order preventing the regulator from carrying out any coercive action against broadcasters violating the mandated 12 minute ad cap set by it.

    Broadcasters are heaving a sigh of relief as there were fears that the regulator would prosecute them for the same. Last week’s Supreme Court judgment had struck down the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal’s (TDSAT) powers to adjudicate against TRAI regulations. This had nullified the efforts by the broadcasters to get a reversal in the ad cap case by TDSAT.

    The date of the next hearing is 13 March 2014. Broadcasters have to continue the weekly submission of ad duration data to the TRAI.

    The case is surely set to drag on for quite some months as compared to its briskness in TDSAT.  The broadcasters include the NBA, 9X Media, Sun TV, B4U, TV Vision, Sun TV, E24 and Pioneer Channel that had approached the HC after the case was dismissed by the TDSAT last week.

  • Brands come out in support of LGBT community

    Brands come out in support of LGBT community

    MUMBAI: There are brands and then there are brands. The difference between the two is that while some try to be safe and use the same-old formula to reach out to their target audience, others break free to connect with their TG through the issues that matter to them.

    The Supreme Court has turned back the clock on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that was earlier decriminalised by the Delhi High Court in 2009. As per the recent verdict, the 1861 law that criminalises any kind of sexual activity “against the order of nature” – including homosexual acts. While thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists and supporters came out on the streets and took to social media platforms to avenge and retaliate against the ‘regressive’ verdict, they surprisingly found unexpected support from few brands.

    Amul, for instance, has been the pioneer in putting the (ugly) truth out in the open with its cheeky remarks on topical issues. This time again, it has again taken a stand. In its recently released ad, the Amul mascot – the girl in polka-dotted dress offers condolences as she stands beside a tombstone with “Freedom of choice” inscribed on it.

    However, what is interesting to note is that it isn’t just Amul that is making itself heard as a brand. Other brands are shedding their inhibitions as well. The youth fashion brand, Fastrack which takes pride in being the in-your-face youth brand shared a picture on the social media platforms supporting the LGBT community. It read: “The road to equality has never been straight”. Even earlier, the brand had launched a ‘Come out of the closet’ campaign challenging the taboos and asking people to let go of societal norms because the brand is moving on with time.

    But what has surprised everyone the most is the coming of age stance of Tanishq that is largely known to be a brand following tradition. The jewellery brand from the house of Tata took the plunge with the latest advertisement on a social media site which read: “Two of a kind always makes a beautiful pair!” making an unexpected sassy remark on the issue. In a very subtle tone, the brand has made it clear what it stands for.

    Gradually, it is trying to break away from the other traditional counterparts. In October, Tanishq had launched a campaign for its latest wedding collection where a dusky woman was seen remarrying. With the film, the brand aimed to target young women who are looking for differentiated designs and not the old, traditional ones.

    Allen Solly too flaunted the ‘colours’ on the networking site.

    Even internationally, the brands have come out to support the cause with some times being appreciated for their initiatives and many times condemned as well. When United Colors of Benetton launched its ‘Unhate’ campaign featuring images of world leaders in passionate lip-locks with some of their biggest rivals last year, the campaign didn’t do much for world peace but it won an award at Cannes.

    Similarly, Kenneth Cole showcased an ad with two handbags and a headline that read: “We’re pro-choice, after all, she’s the one carrying it.” It was a tongue-in-cheek comment on the debate on abortion in the US.

    Eyewear style brand Ray-Ban was also praised for its advertisement in 2012 that was gay-inclusive. Released as part of its “Never Hide” campaign as part of the company’s 75th anniversary, the ad featured two sharply-dressed gay men out for a romantic stroll on a busy sidewalk.

    The popular coffee brand, Starbucks, which entered the Indian markets, has also taken a pro-LGBT stand. In an interview a US journalist, the coffee chain’s CEO Howard Schultz had revealed that he has once told an anti-gay marriage activist to sell his shares in the company if he disagreed with the company’s position on the issue. His rationale was that it was an important issue to Starbucks’ 200,000 employees, so at the end it was worth any lost sales. “Some things aren’t economic decisions,” he had said that time.

  • Bollywood comes out in support of the LGBT community

    Bollywood comes out in support of the LGBT community

    MUMBAI: Everyone was in for a shock yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled that there was no constitutional room for change in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that holds same gender sexual relationship an offence. The Bollywood fraternity, which in the age of social media has become really vocal, especially when it comes to supporting the social causes, even this time came out to criticise the SC’s ruling. Many people from the industry started tweeting as soon as the news broke.

     

    Section 377 of IPC makes gay sex an offence punishable with up to life imprisonment, said a bench of justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhaya while overruling an earlier verdict by the High Court that had decriminalised same sex relationship.

     

    Filmmaker Karan Johar tweeted: “#Sec377 is not just a violation of human rights but also makes democracy seem like a mirage in our country….”. This was even retweeted by fashion designer Manish Malhotra.

     

    Actor Adil Hussain wrote: “Ramdev and Judiciary have forgotten the Role of Shikhandi and Brihannala in Mahabharata.Wonder what Values they are talking about!! #Sec377.”

     

    Filmmaker Farhan Akhtar, who has been initiating many movements of late online, was upset with the ruling as well, but expressed himself in just one-liner, “The Supreme Court got it wrong today.”

     

    Actor Richa Chadda, who has been known for her fiery and strong characters, tweeted, “The Supreme Court criminalises love, again. Sad day.”

     

    Kabir Bedi wrote: “It’s a sad day when the Supreme Court of India does not uphold the democratic rights of sexual minorities. #Sec377 #LGBT”. He continued, “The State should stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. SC upholding regressive law seems bigoted. #Sec377 #LGBT.”

     

    Even actor Anushka Sharma, didn’t hesitate to present her disappointment. She tweeted, “So disappointed with the SC (supreme court) verdict. Freedom is such a deceptive term. Rights are an ambiguous mystery.”

     

    Singer-actor Shruti Haasan wrote, “11.12.13 a day that reminds us how blatant regressing and oppressing someone has become – plan b move bedroom to another planet and time… (It is) frightening how someone else decides how when and who you should love – basically freedom of choice isn’t legal anymore.”

  • LCOs challenge TRAI DAS order in High Court By Seema Singh

    LCOs challenge TRAI DAS order in High Court By Seema Singh

    MUMBAI: The Gujarat Cable Operators Association (GCOA) has approached the High Court of Gujarat against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the central government of India and state government against the ruling on digitisation.

     

    In the petition submitted to the HC, the petitioner has challenged the legality of Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Tariff and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations.

     

    In the current scenario, as defined by the regulator, the revenue share ratio between the MSOs and LCOs is 55:45 for free-to-air channels and 65:35 with respect to pay channels. The LCOs in Gujarat find it discriminatory and prejudicial to their interest.

     

    “We have challenged all the notifications passed by TRAI. This includes revenue share, consumer application forms (CAFs) and billing,” informs Gujarat Cable Operators Association president Pramod Pandya. The laws, according to Pandya are complicated and aim at completely removing the presence of LCOs from the cable industry. “We feel that every order passed till date with regards to digitisation is one-sided. All the laws have been drawn up against the LCOs,” he adds.

     

    The association on 2 September 2013 moved to the Supreme Court with the matter. The SC then ordered them to address the issue to the High Court first. “We then filed a petition to the Gujarat HC on 10 September,” he informs.

     

    The court during its 13 November hearing has asked the TRAI and government to declare the reasons for formulating the existing laws pertaining to tariff and interconnection in the next 15 days.

     

    “I don’t understand the basis of these laws. It is the LCOs who build the customer base and now all of a sudden we have been asked to transfer our rights to the MSOs,” says Pandya.

     

    The LCOs also feel that the issues relating to digitisation have never been discussed with the registered 60,000 cable operators.

     

    “None of the state cable operator associations were called before the process of digitisation was enforced.”

     

    The cable operators in Gujarat, say they are only asking for their rights. “If I don’t have a right, then why should I collect revenue or collect CAFs from consumers? We have built the customer base for all these years. The MSO give us the signal, for which we pay them a rent and then bill the customer. How can government all of a sudden ask us to not do the billing?” questions Pandya.

     

    According to the petition filed, of which indiantelevision.com has a copy of, the members of the petitioning association under the said provisions work under the MSOs as their revenue collecting agents while at the same time provide maintenance and services to the subscribers on behalf of the MSOs at their own cost since the entire cable network has been laid down by them over a number of years.

     

    The association has some 2500 cable operators as its members. “We are not targeting MSOs…they are only following what the TRAI has asked them to do.”

     

    The LCOs feel that their roles have been reduced to mere commission agents.

     

    “We are being forced to depend on the MSOs,” opines Pandya. Under digitisation, it is mandatory for the LCOs to collect and submit CAFs. “This is harsh and oppressive since it would compel the LCOs to share their subscriber’s base with the MSO’s making them more vulnerable,” says Pandya.

     

    He is clear that till there is no clarification on the notifications passed by TRAI, the cable operators in Gujarat will not even seed set top boxes. When asked if the operators will meet the CAF deadline he says, “It is a court case now. We have challenged every aspect of digitisation. So till this is resolved and the court passes an order on this, there will be no CAF collection or billing in Gujarat.”

     

    The association had in the beginning of DAS phase II approached the High Court, which had then given a stay order for 16 days for implementation of DAS. “The process of digitisation started only from 16 April in Gujarat. So far only four cities of Gujarat: Surat, Baroda, Ahmedabad and Rajkot have moved ahead on this,” he concludes.

  • Empowered Committee recommends re-drafting of Cinematograph Act 1952

    Empowered Committee recommends re-drafting of Cinematograph Act 1952

    NEW DELHI: The empowered Committee under the chairmanship of retired Punjab and High Court Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal has submitted a fresh draft of the Cinematograph Act 1952 to incorporate its recommendations related to certification of films and piracy issues.

     

    In its report submitted to Information and Broadcasting Minister Manish Tewari today, the Committee has also dealt with issues such as advisory panels, guidelines for certification and issues such as portrayal of women, obscenity and communal disharmony, classification of Films and jurisdiction of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).

     

    The Committee also gave its views on advisory panels in different parts of the country to the Central Board of Film Certification; apart from ways to deal with video piracy.

     

    A thorough review of the Cinematograph Act has also been undertaken in the light of developments over the last six decades.

     

    The Censorship Guidelines were last amended on 6 December 1991. The Board presently consists of non-official members and a chairman (all of whom are appointed by Central Government) and functions with headquarters at Mumbai. It has nine Regional offices/Advisory Panels, one each at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram, Hyderabad, New Delhi, Cuttack and Guwahati. The Regional Offices are assisted in the examination of  films by Advisory Panels. The members of the panels are nominated by Central Government by drawing people from different walks of life for a period of two years.

     

    The committee was constituted by the Ministry on 4 February 2013 and held several meetings during its eight-month tenure with various stakeholders. These meetings were held in Chennai, Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata. Eminent persons connected with the film sector were invited by the Committee to present their views. The Committee also held discussions with members and officials of CBFC, officials of the Animal Welfare Board of India, Chairperson of BCCC, representatives of the Film Federation of India, the Films and Television Producers Guild of India and the Multiplex Association of India.

    Other members of the Committee are former I and B Secretary Uday Kumar Varma; FCAT Chairman Lalit Bhasin; former CBFC Chairperson Sharmila Tagore; eminent film lyricist Javed Akhtar; CBFC Chairperson Leela Samson; South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce Secretary and former Film Federation of India President L Suresh; Supreme Court advocate Ms Rameeza Hakim, and I and B Joint Secretary (Films) Raghvendra Singh who was the member convener.