ITV

Tag: Justice

  • Former SC judge Ashok Bhushan appointed as NCLAT chairperson

    Former SC judge Ashok Bhushan appointed as NCLAT chairperson

    Mumbai: The central government on Friday appointed retired Supreme Court judge Ashok Bhushan as chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

    The post of NCLAT chairperson has been vacant since March 2020. Justice Bhushan has been given a term of four years or until he attains the age of 70 years, whichever is the earliest.

    He has been associated with several landmark judgments, including Ram Mandir, Covid-19 management, and registration of migrant workers.

    The central government has also approved the appointment of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar as the president of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for five years or till he attains the age of 67 years, whichever is the earliest.

    Sudhakar was former chief justice of Manipur high court.

  • TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI almost done with its arguments

    TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI almost done with its arguments

    MUMBAI: The third day of the arguments presented by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) saw several crucial points being touched upon and the TDSAT also noting down points that could be pondered upon for rumination.

    The TRAI counsel Rakesh Dwivedi pointed out that if one reads section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Networks (CTN) Act then it must be read with the ad cap regulation because the regulator was using it only to enforce this section.

    Section 7 (11) states that the authority has the power to ‘seize equipment used for operating the cable television network if it is found to be breaching its other sections’.

    According to the TRAI, programmes and advertisements are different and the regulator is trying to prevent intermixing of these two and ensuring an increase in quality of service.

    The regulator also gave its version regarding Article 19 (a) of the Constitution saying that airwaves and frequencies are a public property of the government and so there is no fundamental right that can apply to it. Electronic media and press are different and cannot be treated equally. Broadcasters are companies and not citizens so fundamental rights don’t apply to them, Dwivedi argued.

    The point about misuse of clock hour was once again raised by Justice Aftab Alam to which the TRAI reverted by saying that the clock hour regulation instituted by the TRAI and the CTN Act are the same thing and they cannot be interpreted in any other way. Broadcasters are thinking of a bankable hour, that can be carried over within 24 hours but the TRAI says that a clock hour is fixed.

    The bench questioned the TRAI that if it could have enforced the ad cap law under the CTN Act then it need not have made a separate regulation or a direction or use the TRAI act for it.

    To this, counsel said that the CTN Act only applies to cable operators at this stage. And just because they have two powers that are coinciding they cannot take away one power. The point where broadcasters come into the picture of this Act, is for the advertising and programming code, which they have to adhere to by virtue of them having to apply for an uplinking and downlinking licence.

    The TRAI counsel also requested that merely because it had framed a regulation or passed a direction the bench may not nullify it because it has passed it under the TRAI act and not the CTN act, although it has powers under both. He also requested that if the bench were to find anything wrong with the ad cap regulation, they may modify it. However, Alam said that it cannot be done since it was a delegated regulation. To this TRAI asked the bench to consider it as a direction and then modify it keeping in mind the best interest of the viewers.

    One of the arguments, that the counsel raised, relates to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution that speaks about the fundamental right to equality. He stated that it would be in fair spirit if cable operators and broadcasters are not equated with each other at this juncture. The TRAI counsel presented data which clearly showed that broadcasters were airing TV commercials for an unbearable duration every day in between programmes and hence it had decided to apply the ad cap to them first. The limits on TV commercial time will be imposed on cable operators later by the TRAI, the counsel revealed. And the fact that cable ops will be made to comply later does not mean that broadcasters should be excluded from the ad cap now.

    The counsel said he would be addressing the issue of clubbing channel genres together on Monday.

    The bench asked the TRAI why it wasn’t willing to wait till digitization was completed to impose the ad cap regulation. The TRAI argued that by September 2014, nearly 50 per cent of the country will be digitized. Hence it was a good enough reason to bring in ad time limits rules now so that TV air time could be slowly modulated over the period. The TRAI counsel agreed the regulation may not be perfect in its current form, but that does not give the TDSAT a reason to strike it down.

    Regarding FTA channels, Dwivedi said that the broadcasters had not given the TRAI any financial or commercials analysis of the minute by minute usage of ad time and data to support that ad revenues will indeed fall when the ad cap comes into effect. Hence, the regulator had made a general reccee of the channels and deduced what needed to be done and only then drawn up the ad cap regulation. It also stated that FTA channels don’t have too many ads so TRAI did not know why they were objecting to it.

    At the end of the proceedings, an important observation was made by the TDSAT that if the ad cap regulation is struck down, no law can be contended except section 7 (11) of the CTN Act, because broadcasters have accepted this act. Articles 14 and 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution are against the imposition of the ad cap regulation and then the only thing that remains is the interpretation of the 7 (11) section of the CTN Act.

    The TRAI will continue with its arguments on Monday and the broadcasters are scheduled to speak after that.

  • Zee 24 Gantalu seeks justice from court

    Zee 24 Gantalu seeks justice from court

    MUMBAI: Of late Zee 24 Gantalu, the Telugu news channel of ZMCL has been a plethora of cases being filed against it.  The latest is that it has decided to finally take a stand and say ‘enough is enough’. The channel has filed a writ petition in the Hyderabad High Court yesterday to seek relief from the FIR lodged against it by DGP V Dinesh Reddy.

    A case of ‘spreading communal tension’ has been lodged in the police against it following which two employees (journalists) had been arrested and remanded in custody for two days. They are currently on bail and several other staff members have also taken anticipatory bail including the chief editor K Siva Prasad and the input editor.

    The news report that is creating trouble is the one about the DGP (who is to retire soon) going to various babas (godmen) including a Hindu and a Muslim and touching their feet. He claims that the video has been morphed. The other case is where the Muslim baba has accused the channel of calling him a ‘black magician’.

    “The words we used were ‘mantra gaadu’ which does not mean black magician but someone who is performing mantras,” says Zee 24 Gantalu editor K Siva Prasad.
    The court’s order will come out tomorrow.

    Last month another notice was sent to the channel regarding a video telecast on TRS chief K Chandrashekhar Rao on the repatriation of Seemandhara region’s employees.

  • Spectrum is a valuable national revenue and cannot be given free, says apex Court

    Spectrum is a valuable national revenue and cannot be given free, says apex Court

    NEW DELHI: Holding that spectrum is a valuable national resource and not meant for charity, the Supreme Court has asked the government to explain reasons allocating additional spectrum to GSM telecom operators allegedly free of cost.

    A bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi said: “Spectrum is taken by the Centre from the army on the name of developing telecom sector and to provide service to the common man.”

    “The price of spectrum is thousands of crores. It is a national resource and it cannot be alloted free of cost. You must follow due procedure for allocation of natural resources,” the bench said.

    It also imposed a cost of one lakh rupee each on Centre and seven telecom companies, including Bharti, Vodafone, Reliance and Idea Cellular, for not filing their response during the last one year on a plea challenging allotment of excess spectrum.

     

    “More than a year has passed but you have filed counter. The issues raised in the petition are serious and requires serious consideration,” the bench said asking the parties to deposit the money in the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.

    The court was hearing a petition seeking cancellation of 2G spectrum beyond 2×4.5 MHz for metros and 2×4.4 MHz for other circles allocated since 1996 to the telcos without charging additional fee.

    The petitioner alleged that while allotting additional spectrum, the Centre ignored its own order of 1 February 2002, which said that “additional allocation could be considered only after a suitable subscriber base, as may be prescribed, is reached.”
    In another case, the Court rejected several petitions seeking recall of its 11 April 2011 order that barred the Delhi High Court from entertaining any plea against orders of Special CBI court hearing 2G cases.

    Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Radhakrishnan said it would be in the larger public interest and in the interest of the accused as well that the trial should proceed unhampered on day-to-day basis.

    Rejecting the pleas of Shahid Balwa, Vinod Goenka, Rajiv Agarwal, Asif Balwa and Ravinder Kumar Chandolia, a bench comprising of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan also rejected the plea for framing guidelines on the monitoring of investigations by the apex court. The court said it was only monitoring the investigation being undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the enforcement directorate and not monitoring the trial in 2G cases.

    The apex court by its April 2011 order had said: “We also make it clear that any objection about appointment of Special Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Advocate or any prayer for staying or impeding progress of the trial can only be made before this court and no other court shall entertain the same. The trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis.”

    The petitioners have sought the recall of the latter part of the order which had said: “…any prayer for staying or impeding progress of the trial can be made only before this court and no other court shall entertain the same. The trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis.”

    The petitioners had also sought vacation of a 9 December 2012, order by which the apex court had stayed all the proceedings before Delhi High Court arising from the order of the 2G special court. The apex court had reserved its order on 21 August 2013.