ITV

Tag: Kapil Sibal

  • No funds for England series, BCCI moves Supreme Court

    No funds for England series, BCCI moves Supreme Court

    MUMBAI: The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) today moved the Supreme Court, saying there are no funds for the India-England Test series scheduled to start tomorrow (9 November) in Rajkot. The BCCI said the Lodha panel has to release funds needed for the series with immediate effect.

    The Supreme Court bench says it will consult the Chief Justice of India on the matter. In response, the Lodha panel has opposed BCCI submission, saying that the cricket body is in contempt by not respective apex court orders.

    Justice RM Lodha panel secretary, Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, told the Hindu neither the BCCI nor its member-state associations has given compliance reports or undertakings that they would comply with the recommendations as per the Supreme Court verdict on October 21.

    The court has frozen the disbursal of funds from BCCI to state member-associations till the latter comply with the panel recommendations. The Board approached Justice Dave’s Bench as Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur is heading a Constitution Bench. Justice Dave said his Bench would consult with the Chief Justice and get back at 2 pm.

    The new move on the eve of the series comes despite the Supreme Court concluding in a 21-page judgment that BCCI’s top administrators, including its president and BJP MP Anurag Thakur, were an impediment to Justice R.M. Lodha Committee’s efforts to reform Indian cricket.

    Senior counsel for the BCCI, Kapil Sibal, and his team gathered to draft the petition. BCCI’s contention is that, in line with the October 21 order of the SC, the BCCI president and the secretary both have filed their respective affidavits with the Lodha Committee. The Board says it hasn’t heard from the committee yet and there’s been no acknowledgement on the affidavits and the email communication either.

    BCCI is looking to raise the matter in the SC today, citing absolute confusion in the matter that has led to all administrative processes coming to a standstill. The Board says, “there are contracts waiting to be signed, agreements with the England Cricket Board is pending, there’s no word on the IPL media rights tender and there’s hardly any time left for the 2017 edition and preparations need to begin.”

    The apex court, in a slew of directions, had sought appointment of an “independent auditor” to “scrutinise and audit” the income and expenditure of the cash-rich body besides going into high-value contracts awarded to various entities awarded by it.

  • No funds for England series, BCCI moves Supreme Court

    No funds for England series, BCCI moves Supreme Court

    MUMBAI: The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) today moved the Supreme Court, saying there are no funds for the India-England Test series scheduled to start tomorrow (9 November) in Rajkot. The BCCI said the Lodha panel has to release funds needed for the series with immediate effect.

    The Supreme Court bench says it will consult the Chief Justice of India on the matter. In response, the Lodha panel has opposed BCCI submission, saying that the cricket body is in contempt by not respective apex court orders.

    Justice RM Lodha panel secretary, Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, told the Hindu neither the BCCI nor its member-state associations has given compliance reports or undertakings that they would comply with the recommendations as per the Supreme Court verdict on October 21.

    The court has frozen the disbursal of funds from BCCI to state member-associations till the latter comply with the panel recommendations. The Board approached Justice Dave’s Bench as Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur is heading a Constitution Bench. Justice Dave said his Bench would consult with the Chief Justice and get back at 2 pm.

    The new move on the eve of the series comes despite the Supreme Court concluding in a 21-page judgment that BCCI’s top administrators, including its president and BJP MP Anurag Thakur, were an impediment to Justice R.M. Lodha Committee’s efforts to reform Indian cricket.

    Senior counsel for the BCCI, Kapil Sibal, and his team gathered to draft the petition. BCCI’s contention is that, in line with the October 21 order of the SC, the BCCI president and the secretary both have filed their respective affidavits with the Lodha Committee. The Board says it hasn’t heard from the committee yet and there’s been no acknowledgement on the affidavits and the email communication either.

    BCCI is looking to raise the matter in the SC today, citing absolute confusion in the matter that has led to all administrative processes coming to a standstill. The Board says, “there are contracts waiting to be signed, agreements with the England Cricket Board is pending, there’s no word on the IPL media rights tender and there’s hardly any time left for the 2017 edition and preparations need to begin.”

    The apex court, in a slew of directions, had sought appointment of an “independent auditor” to “scrutinise and audit” the income and expenditure of the cash-rich body besides going into high-value contracts awarded to various entities awarded by it.

  • SC nixes TRAI’s compensation directive for call drops

    New Delhi: In a judgment that comes as a major relief to telecom operators even as it hits the users, the Supreme Court today held as arbitrary and unconstitutional a decision by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in October last year  imposing a compensation for call drops.

    The decision came on an appeal by the the telcos after their petition in the Delhi High Court was dismissed in December last against the directive of compensation of Rs one for every call drop, limited to a maximum of three such calls per day. The TRAI order of October last year was to come into effect from 1 January.

    The Apex Court said the order was “illegal and not transparent”.

    Talking to newspersons outside the court, telecom operators counsel Kapil Sibal said: “(The) SC has rendered historic judgement today by striking down Trai s regulation.”

    “The court said the regulation was unreasonable, arbitrary and the procedure followed was not transparent,” he added. 

     

  • SC nixes TRAI’s compensation directive for call drops

    New Delhi: In a judgment that comes as a major relief to telecom operators even as it hits the users, the Supreme Court today held as arbitrary and unconstitutional a decision by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in October last year  imposing a compensation for call drops.

    The decision came on an appeal by the the telcos after their petition in the Delhi High Court was dismissed in December last against the directive of compensation of Rs one for every call drop, limited to a maximum of three such calls per day. The TRAI order of October last year was to come into effect from 1 January.

    The Apex Court said the order was “illegal and not transparent”.

    Talking to newspersons outside the court, telecom operators counsel Kapil Sibal said: “(The) SC has rendered historic judgement today by striking down Trai s regulation.”

    “The court said the regulation was unreasonable, arbitrary and the procedure followed was not transparent,” he added. 

     

  • Tariff Hike Case: SC rejects appeal challenging TDSAT order; asks TRAI to out new tariff

    Tariff Hike Case: SC rejects appeal challenging TDSAT order; asks TRAI to out new tariff

    NEW DELHI: Dismissing the appeal challenging an order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) setting aside the amendments in two tariff orders, which had sought to put an inflation-linked hike of 27.5 per cent on addressable and non-addressable systems, the Supreme Court today asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to come up with new tariff as early as possible.

    The Court also said that the multi-system operators (MSOs) will not insist on a refund of their payments to broadcasters but will wait for the new tariff orders.

    Thus, the apex Court held intact the 28 April order of the Tribunal holding as ‘untenable’ the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Eleventh Amendment) Order, 2014’ and ‘The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Thirteenth Amendment) Order, 2014’.

    Appellants Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), Star India, Vijay Television, Viacom18 and Sun TV had sought stay on the ground of wholesale price index. They also sought to argue that there was consultation prior to issuance of the Tariff orders, which they said were not strictly Tariff orders.

    While the appellants were represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the defendant Home Cable Network Services Pvt Ltd and Vikki Choudhary were represented by senior counsel Aman Lekhi and Vivek Sarin.

    When the appellants late last month sought early hearing, the Court asked TRAI not to give effect to its direction asking broadcasters to roll back the 27.5 per cent tariff hike for non-addressable areas until the next hearing. The regulator had on 27 July asked broadcasters to revise their wholesale tariffs, even though it had noted that the Supreme Court had declined to stay the TDSAT order.

    In its order, TDSAT had said TRAI “will be well advised to have a fresh look at the various tariff orders in a holistic manner and come out with a comprehensive tariff order in supersession of all the earlier tariff orders.”

    “While doing so, it may consider all the agreements and relevant data available with it. It may consider differentiating between content which is of a monopolistic nature as against that the like of which is shown by other channels also.”

    “It may also consider classifying the content into premium and basic tiers. It may identify the major cost components so that increase or decrease in such costs may be suitably factored while working out the inflationary hikes. Increase in costs of such components as may be available in indexes such as Wholesale Price Index (WPI), GDP deflator etc. can then be applied. While working out the tariffs, the effort should be to encourage a correct declaration of SLR. While carrying out the exercise, it may take the inputs from various stakeholders and give a reasoned order for accepting or rejecting the same. We want to be amply clear that the above are only some suggestions and TRAI being an expert body may arrive at suitable tariffs independently; it is up to it to consider the above and/or any other factors,” the Tribunal said.

    The IBF had come in as an intervener while the other interveners were direct to home (DTH) operators, MSOs, Association of Cable Operators and cable operators.

    TRAI had allowed a 15 per cent hike from 1 April, 2014. The second installment of 12.5 per cent tariff hike came into effect from 1 January, 2015.

    TRAI said the inflationary increases given by it were based on increase in the WPI. In the Explanatory Memorandum with the Second Amendment to the Principal Tariff Order, it was explained that for making adjustments for inflation WPI had been used. It was explained that Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not used as latest information for this was not available and further this related to certain specific consumption baskets. As per the Explanatory Memorandum to the impugned Tariff Order, the WPI has increased by 43.69 per cent and giving a pass through of 63 per cent, an inflation linked increase of 27.5 per cent is allowed.    

  • Security clearance clause for FM Phase III applies to companies & directors, not shareholders: Delhi HC

    Security clearance clause for FM Phase III applies to companies & directors, not shareholders: Delhi HC

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, which permitted Red FM to take part in the FM Phase III e-auctions that commenced today (27 July), said Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd and Digital Radio (Mumbai) Broadcasting Ltd, which run Red FM in these two cities have not been alleged to be vehicles of any transgression of law and have been functioning since 2002-2003 without there being any allegation regarding their functioning resulting in any security concerns.

     

    Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva, who had read out the operative portion yesterday (26 July), said Clause 3.8 of the Notice Inviting Applications had reference only to the company and its directors and there is no mention of its shareholders.

     

    Both Dayanidhi Maran and Kalanithi Maran are shareholders and therefore the Clause does not apply to them.

     

    At the outset, the Court said it was not adjudicating on the validity of clause 3.8. Although appeals have been made seeking the quashing of Clause 3.8, the main thrust of the arguments of Counsel Kapil Sibal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi was on the interpretation of Clause 3.8 and whether the same was applied correctly or not. In any event, since the petitioners have participated in the auction process, they cannot now challenge Clause 3.8.

     

    The court also said that it was not touching upon the policy of requiring a security clearance. “We are, as rightly pointed out by Mr Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General of India, not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Government as to the security angle assessment insofar as Dayanidhi Maran or Kalanithi Maran are concerned. We are also not called upon to comment upon, nor have we, as to whether the allegations/charges against the said two individuals and Sun TV are well founded or unfounded. Those would be decided in criminal proceedings,” the Court said.

     

    Thus the limited extent of judicial review was whether the security assessment in respect of the Maran brothers was germane to the requirements of security clearance prescribed in Clause 3.8 of the NIA. Clause 3.8 stipulates the requirement of a security clearance of the “company” as well as all its “Directors on the Board.” Now, on plain reading, this would imply that the company, which has applied must be security cleared. Not only the corporate entity, which is distinct and separate in law, but also its directors as individuals, distinct from the corporate entity, have to be security cleared. At the same time, the clause does not, on plain reading, extend to shareholders of the applicant company.

     

    The Government had argued that if the shareholders are not roped in then it would amount to ascribing a very narrow meaning to Clause 3.8 of the NIA, which would defeat the very purpose of having a security clearance particularly in this very sensitive field of radio waves.

     

    “We are afraid we cannot agree with this submission. Dr Singhvi was right in submitting that the clause has serious ramifications extending far beyond the present e-auction. If security clearance were to be denied to a company, as has happened in the two cases before us, that would a blot on that company – a badge of dishonour – as Dr Singhvi put it. When such serious penal consequences are to follow then the provisions of Clause 3.8 would require a strict interpretation and if there were any doubt, an interpretation against the maker of the clause would have to be adopted,” the Court said.

     

    Furthermore, the Court said there was no allegation that the petitioner companies were created as a “camouflage to shield the persons exercising control over them from any liability. There is also no allegation that the petitioner companies themselves have indulged in any activities, which could raise security concerns. In fact, both the petitioner companies have been operating their licenses under Phases I and II since 2002-2003. Even when the cases against the Marans were registered in 2011, the petitioner companies have continued to operate their respective radio channels without any objection concerning security issues. As pointed out by Mr Sibal, both these companies got extensions of their licenses by six months as recently as on 31 March 2015. Even then, no security concerns were raised in respect of the two companies.”

     

    It was pointed out by Sibal that in respect of the various cases against the Marans, nobody has been convicted and in fact, the charge-sheet has been filed in only one of four cases.

  • Red FM gets HC nod to participate in FM Phase III auctions

    Red FM gets HC nod to participate in FM Phase III auctions

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, which had earlier permitted Digital Radio Broadcasting Ltd, which runs Red FM to take part in the mock e-auction, today (26 July) gave the company permission to take part in the main e-auction for FM Phase III commencing tomorrow (27 July).

     

    Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva pronounced the order on a Sunday in view of the urgency of the matter. 

     

    The court had yesterday heard detailed arguments by Red FM counsel Kapil Sibal for Red FM who said that there was no security issue involved even in the light of the cases against the Maran brothers. He also said this amounted to curbs on the freedom of the media.

     

    Government standing counsel Sanjiv Narula, who had said there was no question of postponement of the e-auctions as that would have a cascading effect.

     

    It had been pointed out by Sibal that the Madras High Court had already permitted three sister companies to take part in the main e-auction. However, Narula said the Madras High Court’s single judge order was not binding upon the division bench of Delhi High Court.

     

    The Court had earlier termed as “incongruent” the denial of security clearance to Red FM to participate in the Stage III FM auction due to its association with the Sun TV Group, while Madras High Court had allowed it to take part. 

     

    The bench said while the Madras HC has allowed the Sun TV Group to participate in the auction, the Centre has denied the same relief to Digital Radio Broadcasting Ltd, due to its association with the Maran-run group.

     

    The Madras High Court, while passing orders on 23 July, asked that the results of the auction be kept in a sealed cover till further orders and said that it would be subject to the result of the main writ petition filed by the group, which has sought a direction to quash the order passed by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. 

     

    The Ministry had filed an affidavit in the Delhi High Court stating that Red FM’s plea for security clearance to participate in stage III of FM auctions was not maintainable as it is seeking judicial review of a ‘policy decision.’

     

    Earlier on 22 July, the Delhi High Court had allowed Red FM to take part in mock auctions for the third phase of e-auctions after Narula told the Court that it was not possible for the Ministry to postpone the main FM auctions. He said the entire process had been lined and any postponement will have a cascading effect.

     

    Red FM is among the prime bidders in the phase III of FM auctions covering 135 radio channels in 69 cities.

     

    The Ministry had last week issued a list of 21 bidders, which did not include the Group’s Red FM, and then sent a formal communication to the Group on 15 July that it had been denied permission.

     

    Red FM has pleaded to the Court that the Centre should permit Sun Group to migrate to the Phase-III regime by allowing it to resubmit the application of 20 March, 2015 to participate in the e-auction.

     

    The petitions also said the company was not involved in any dispute with the nation’s security, nor had it broadcast anything that affected the security of the nation.

     

    Apart from the denial to participate in Phase III FM auctions, the order also implied that the sister companies of the Sun Group would be compelled to close down FM radio stations, totalling 45 across the nation, the petitioners said.

  • Sun Group’s entry order in FM Phase III auctions expected on 22 July in Delhi & Chennai HC

    Sun Group’s entry order in FM Phase III auctions expected on 22 July in Delhi & Chennai HC

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court today (21 July) asked counsel for the Union of India to get instructions on whether the auctions for FM Phase III will be postponed or whether the Sun Group will be permitted to take part.

     

    The Court adjourned the hearing of the main case and the application for stay to tomorrow to allow government counsel to get instructions. Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal presented the case for Sun Group.

     

    The Group has sought a stay on the order of the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry in this regard. The Ministry had last week issued a list of 21 bidders, which did not include the Group’s Red FM, and then sent a formal communication to the Group on 15 July that it had been denied permission.

     

    In Chennai, the Madras High Court reserved its orders on the interim application for stay and is expected to pronounce its verdict tomorrow (22 July). 

     

    The Court has been asked to direct the Centre to permit Sun Group to migrate to the Phase-III regime by allowing it to resubmit the application dated 20 March, 2015 to participate in the auction.

     

    The petitions also said the company was not involved in any dispute with the nation’s security, nor had it broadcast anything that affected the security of the nation.

     

    The petition alleges that the order denying permission had been issued “carelessly, with total non-application of mind and in a cavalier fashion, totally unmindful of its consequences and repercussions not only on Sun TV but also on the entire broadcasting and media industry.”

     

    Apart from the denial to participate in Phase III FM auctions, the order also implied that the sister companies of the Sun Group would be compelled to close down FM radio stations, totalling 45 across the nation, the petitioners said.

     

    “Non-inclusion of the company’s name on the list is nothing but closing the entire FM stations run by it for extraneous, illegal and mala fide reasons,” the petitions said.

     

    It has pointed out that the Indian Telegraph Act does not make any mention of security clearance, and licence can be terminated or denied only if there is violation of the terms of the agreement including any defaults in payment.

     

    Clause 2.2(b) of the Information Memorandum and Clause 3.2(b) of the Notice Inviting Application says only a company controlled by a person convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude or money laundering or drug trafficking or terrorist activities or is declared as insolvent will not be eligible to apply. The petitioners said there was nothing in the rules to deny permission to the Sun Group, which is controlled by the Maran brothers.

  • MIB seeks Home Ministry reply on Sun TV case; SC to hear 2G case against Marans on 25 July

    MIB seeks Home Ministry reply on Sun TV case; SC to hear 2G case against Marans on 25 July

    NEW DELHI: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has sought a detailed report from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the reasons for denial of security clearance to Sun TV Network channels.

     

    Noting that the reasons given by the MHA in an earlier communication were vague, an MIB official said that it would need to know full details in the event of Sun TV moving the courts on the issue.

     

    The MIB had earlier written to the Home Ministry seeking the reasons for denial of security clearance to the Sun TV network promoted by Kalanithi Maran and his brother Dayanidhi Maran against whom other cases are also pending. However, the official said that the reply was vague and hence more details had been sought in view of a possible challenge in court.

     

    The MHA had rejected the opinion of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi that security clearance can be granted as agencies are probing cases related to corruption and not security. Hence, he said, corruption cases cannot be the ground to deny security clearance. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is also learnt to have told the two ministries to sort this out among themselves.

     

    Meanwhile, on 25 July the Supreme Court will hear the petition of Sun TV whose assets are threatened to be attached in the 2G-related scam. 

     

    Chief Justice H L Dattu, while hearing the petition, asked the specially appointed prosecutor in the scam not to proceed against the firm till then. 

     

    Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the beleaguered firm of the Marans, sought injunction against attachment, stating that Rs 14,000 crore worth of assets are involved. 

     

    The Chief Justice accepted his argument that only the Supreme Court Bench monitoring the 2G affairs was competent to hear the case. 

  • Will keep away from IPL, says Srinivasan to SC

    Will keep away from IPL, says Srinivasan to SC

    MUMBAI: International Cricket Council (ICC) chairman and BCCI president in exile N Srinivasan has told the Supreme Court of India, that if he is re-elected, he would keep away from the IPL  governing council, till the proposed council decides on the issue of conflict of interest involving him and his IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings. Hi son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan is an alleged accused in the IPL betting scam.

    Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing as his counsel told the bench comprising Justice T.S Thakur and Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla, that if the apex court permitted elections and in the probability that Srinivasan wins, he would keep away from the Indian Premier League council and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) meetings wherein issues relating to the IPL will be discussed.

    Meanwhile media reports also suggested that the BCCI is not in favour of an external committee to look into Srinivasan’s conflict of interest suggesting that it would affect the autonomy the board enjoys.

    This comes in the wake of the Cricket Association of Bihar filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that has asked for the disqualification of Srinivasan as being a part of the BCCI and owner of Chennai Super Kings is a direct conflict of interest.