ITV

Tag: News Broadcasters Association

  • SC: States expected to set up bodies to monitor govt. ads, raps Delhi govt.

    SC: States expected to set up bodies to monitor govt. ads, raps Delhi govt.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said it expected all government “functionaries to rise to the occasion” and to act in the matter of publication of Government advertisements with “utmost responsibility to ensure that such advertisements carry the right message to the citizens and do not glorify and/or personify any particular individual presently in the helm of affairs of the Union or the State.”

    Dismissing a contempt petition by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, the court said the impact and importance of a government advertisement cannot be lost on the functionaries of the Union as well as the State.

    The court expressed confidence that in future advertisements of states, union territories or the Union of India, the “purpose” of government advertisements as dealt with in its judgment “shall be kept in mind and the advertisements will be published in the true spirit in which they are required to be so published.”

    Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justice P C Ghosh said in their recent judgment that the “spirit” of the judgment of 13 May 2015 relating to government advertising “would require the states to also constitute their respective committees which shall now be done.”

    The court added: “If the states so desire the committee constituted at the central level referred to in the affidavit of the Union of India may be entrusted with the task of overseeing the publication of advertisements in the states”.

    The judges said the judgment had “clearly laid down that the committee constituted would be responsible for ironing out the creases that may show from time to time in the implementation of the directions of the court and also to oversee such implementation. In the event it becomes so necessary and the committee, for any reasons, is unable to render effective and meaningful service it is always open for an aggrieved party or a conscious citizen to approach this court once again.”

    Noting that “we do not think it necessary to do so at this stage”, the judges rejected the argument by counsel Prashant Bhushan that the committee suggested by the court should be armed with further powers.

    The Court also noted that the government affidavit showed that the three-member committee has been constituted consisting of the persons mentioned in the body of the affidavit. In fact, the first meeting of the committee has been held on 18 April 2016.

    (A three-member committee headed by former chief election commissioner B B Tandon was set up on 6 April. The other members are News Broadcasters Association president and editor-in-chief of India TV Rajat Sharma, and Ogilvy & Mather executive chairman and creative director for South Asia Piyush Pandey)

    Referring to the allegations about the publication of advertisements by Tamil Nadu, the court said that the affidavit of the chief secretary to the state government showed that the advertisements published by the state do not carry the photograph of the chief minister and the advertisements which do carry the photograph of the chief minister were so published by the Indian Express, New Delhi Edition and funded by the said group and not by the state. Therefore, the judges said “we do not consider it necessary to pursue the matter any further”.

    As far as allegations about advertisements of Delhi government belittling other political parties went, the court said “a reading of the advertisements in question published by the government of NCT of Delhi would go to show that some portions of the same have been somewhat inarticulately drafted and there is room for improvement.”

  • Ad cap case put off to 13 May, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    Ad cap case put off to 13 May, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    NEW DELHI: The ad cap case by television channels continues to linger on, with the Delhi High Court once again putting off the hearing to 13 May when it will hear an application by intervenor Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

    The matter was put off by chief justice G Rohini and justice Jayant Nath as they did not have time to hear the matter in view of urgent cases. In the last hearing on 29 March, a plea was made on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting ministry that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour.

    However counsel Vivek Sarin of Home Cable counsel pressed for early hearing of his application for vacation of stay. Thereupon, counsel for Discovery Communications said it wanted to press its application to come in as intervenor. The court had on 11 February adjourned the hearing to today when it had agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

    Earlier on 27 November last year, the court chaired by the chief justice had said the matter had been pending for some time and therefore it would hear and conclude the case in the next hearing. On that day, the I and B Ministry had informed the Court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour. This was the first time that the ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the News Broadcasters and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others.

    Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd had been permitted to intervene on 5 January and the Court had agreed to consider contentions on whether pay channels should be permitted to carry commercials in view of subscription fee charged by them. Home Cable Counsel Vivek Sarin had told the court that the petitioners had not disclosed that broadcasters had given their consent to observe the 10+2 ad cap rule under the Cable Television Network Regulation Rules 1994 and the Act that followed a year later and also under the Uplink and Downlink Guidelines. He also said pay TV broadcasters should not be allowed to take ads as they charged subscription fee.

    The case, filed by News Broadcasters Association and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

    The court has already directed that the order that TRAI would not take any action against any channel pending the petition would continue. In an earlier hearing, the court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

    The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamoru, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

    Meanwhille, complaints against fifteen broadcasters by TRAI on the ad cap issue are also pending with the chief metropolitan magistrate in Delhi.

  • Ad cap case put off to 13 May, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    Ad cap case put off to 13 May, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    NEW DELHI: The ad cap case by television channels continues to linger on, with the Delhi High Court once again putting off the hearing to 13 May when it will hear an application by intervenor Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

    The matter was put off by chief justice G Rohini and justice Jayant Nath as they did not have time to hear the matter in view of urgent cases. In the last hearing on 29 March, a plea was made on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting ministry that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour.

    However counsel Vivek Sarin of Home Cable counsel pressed for early hearing of his application for vacation of stay. Thereupon, counsel for Discovery Communications said it wanted to press its application to come in as intervenor. The court had on 11 February adjourned the hearing to today when it had agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

    Earlier on 27 November last year, the court chaired by the chief justice had said the matter had been pending for some time and therefore it would hear and conclude the case in the next hearing. On that day, the I and B Ministry had informed the Court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour. This was the first time that the ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the News Broadcasters and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others.

    Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd had been permitted to intervene on 5 January and the Court had agreed to consider contentions on whether pay channels should be permitted to carry commercials in view of subscription fee charged by them. Home Cable Counsel Vivek Sarin had told the court that the petitioners had not disclosed that broadcasters had given their consent to observe the 10+2 ad cap rule under the Cable Television Network Regulation Rules 1994 and the Act that followed a year later and also under the Uplink and Downlink Guidelines. He also said pay TV broadcasters should not be allowed to take ads as they charged subscription fee.

    The case, filed by News Broadcasters Association and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

    The court has already directed that the order that TRAI would not take any action against any channel pending the petition would continue. In an earlier hearing, the court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

    The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamoru, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

    Meanwhille, complaints against fifteen broadcasters by TRAI on the ad cap issue are also pending with the chief metropolitan magistrate in Delhi.

  • Adcap case put off to 27 April, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    Adcap case put off to 27 April, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    NEW DELHI, 29 March: In a day of swift developments, the Delhi High Court listed the adcap case for 27 April when it will hear an application by intervener Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

    Early in the morning, a plea was made in a mention before Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour. Thereupon, the Court adjourned the matter for 21 July.

    However when the matter came up in the list, counsel Vivek Sarin of Home Cable pressed his application for vacation of stay. Thereupon, counsel for Discovery Communications said it wanted to press its application to come in as intervener.

    After hearing counsel for both sides, the judges agreed on early hearing and pre-poned the matter to 27 April.

    The Court had on 11 February adjourned the hearing to today when it had agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

    Earlier on 27 November last year, the Court chaired by the Chief Justice had said the matter had been pending for some time and therefore it will hear and conclude the case in the next hearing.

    On that day, the I and B Ministry had informed the Court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour.

    This was the first time that the Ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the News Broadcasters and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others.

    Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd had been permitted to intervene on 5 January and the Court had agreed to consider contentions on whether pay channels should be permitted to carry commercials in view of subscription fee charged by them. Home Cable Counsel Vivek Sarin had told the court that the petitioners had not disclosed that broadcasters had given their consent to observe the 10+2 ad cap rule under the Cable Television Network Regulation Rules 1994 and the Act that followed a year later and also under the Uplink and Downlink Guidelines. He also said pay TV broadcasters should not be allowed to take ads as they charged subscription fee.

    The case, filed by 9x Media, News Broadcasters Association and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

    (It is learnt by indiantelevision.com that this comes in the wake of a statement made by Minister Arun Jaitley in January last year that there should be no ad cap in the print or electronic media, However, no instructions have been issued in this regard by the Minister so far,).

    The Court has already directed that the order that TRAI will not take any action against any channel pending the petition will continue. In an earlier hearing, the Court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

    The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamoru, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

    Meanwhille, complaints against fifteen broadcasters by TRAI on the adcap issue are also pending with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi.

     

  • Adcap case put off to 27 April, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    Adcap case put off to 27 April, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    NEW DELHI, 29 March: In a day of swift developments, the Delhi High Court listed the adcap case for 27 April when it will hear an application by intervener Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

    Early in the morning, a plea was made in a mention before Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour. Thereupon, the Court adjourned the matter for 21 July.

    However when the matter came up in the list, counsel Vivek Sarin of Home Cable pressed his application for vacation of stay. Thereupon, counsel for Discovery Communications said it wanted to press its application to come in as intervener.

    After hearing counsel for both sides, the judges agreed on early hearing and pre-poned the matter to 27 April.

    The Court had on 11 February adjourned the hearing to today when it had agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

    Earlier on 27 November last year, the Court chaired by the Chief Justice had said the matter had been pending for some time and therefore it will hear and conclude the case in the next hearing.

    On that day, the I and B Ministry had informed the Court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour.

    This was the first time that the Ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the News Broadcasters and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others.

    Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd had been permitted to intervene on 5 January and the Court had agreed to consider contentions on whether pay channels should be permitted to carry commercials in view of subscription fee charged by them. Home Cable Counsel Vivek Sarin had told the court that the petitioners had not disclosed that broadcasters had given their consent to observe the 10+2 ad cap rule under the Cable Television Network Regulation Rules 1994 and the Act that followed a year later and also under the Uplink and Downlink Guidelines. He also said pay TV broadcasters should not be allowed to take ads as they charged subscription fee.

    The case, filed by 9x Media, News Broadcasters Association and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

    (It is learnt by indiantelevision.com that this comes in the wake of a statement made by Minister Arun Jaitley in January last year that there should be no ad cap in the print or electronic media, However, no instructions have been issued in this regard by the Minister so far,).

    The Court has already directed that the order that TRAI will not take any action against any channel pending the petition will continue. In an earlier hearing, the Court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

    The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamoru, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

    Meanwhille, complaints against fifteen broadcasters by TRAI on the adcap issue are also pending with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi.

     

  • MIB directs TV channels, MSOs, FM channels to follow directives of Delhi HC on Balaji comedy

    MIB directs TV channels, MSOs, FM channels to follow directives of Delhi HC on Balaji comedy

    New Delhi: Doordarshan and all private channels were today asked by the Information and Broadcasting ministry to comply with the directive of the Delhi High Court not to telecast or publicise in any manner the film Kya Kool Hain Hum 3.

     Justin Vipin Sanghi had passed the order earlier this year on a petition by Balaji Motion Pictures against WWW.1337.YOOTORRENT.COM and others barring them “from  communicating, making available, distributing ,duplicating, displaying, releasing, showing, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, defraying the movie Kya KoolHai Hum 3 in any manner whatsoever without obtaining prior license from the plaintiff or in any other manner that would infringe the plaintiffs copyright in the said cinematograph film through any medium whatsoever.”

     Thirty-six other defendants were directed to ensure compliance of the order by the other defendants.

    The ministry directive dated 14 March was addressed to News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Indian Broadcasting Foundation Association of Regional Television Broadcasters of India, all TV Channels, all MSOs, and all FM Stations.

    In the petition, Balaji had said that release of any material or the film itself would lead to colossal losses to the company.

     Balaji impleading 300 defendants of which 1 to 203 are websites allegedly engaged in the business of uploading content. The plaintiff apprehends that the said websites may even upload unlicensed copy of the plaintiffs film Kya Kool Hai Hum3, of which the plaintiff claims to be the producer and copyright holder. defendants no.204 to 238 are Internet Service Providers (ISP), who are engaged in the business of providing basic telephony, mobile services and broadband network all over the world and are covered by the Information Technology Act, 2000 as well as Copyright Act, 1957 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act).

     The Ministry of Communication & Information Technology has been impleaded as defendant no.239. The plaintiff stated that defendants no.204 to 239 have been impleaded so that the orders that may be passed by the court may be implemented by them by blocking the infringing URLs of websites such as defendants no.1 to 203. Defendants no.240 to260 and 260-274 are Multi System Operators (MSOs) and cable operators governed by the Cable Network RegulationAct 1995 and the TRAI Act. The plaintiff stated that various MSOs and cable operators, including in Delhi could be engaged in unauthorised unlicensed production and broadcast, on their local channels and through other means, of various pirated contents, including cinematograph films through their cable network. The apprehension of the plaintiff was that the said defendants may indulge in broadcast of the aforesaid copyright of the plaintiff, which at the time of the court order of 19 January was yet to be released (on 22 January) and Balaji apprehends will infringe the copyright m  the  aforesaid cinematograph film.

  • MIB directs TV channels, MSOs, FM channels to follow directives of Delhi HC on Balaji comedy

    MIB directs TV channels, MSOs, FM channels to follow directives of Delhi HC on Balaji comedy

    New Delhi: Doordarshan and all private channels were today asked by the Information and Broadcasting ministry to comply with the directive of the Delhi High Court not to telecast or publicise in any manner the film Kya Kool Hain Hum 3.

     Justin Vipin Sanghi had passed the order earlier this year on a petition by Balaji Motion Pictures against WWW.1337.YOOTORRENT.COM and others barring them “from  communicating, making available, distributing ,duplicating, displaying, releasing, showing, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, defraying the movie Kya KoolHai Hum 3 in any manner whatsoever without obtaining prior license from the plaintiff or in any other manner that would infringe the plaintiffs copyright in the said cinematograph film through any medium whatsoever.”

     Thirty-six other defendants were directed to ensure compliance of the order by the other defendants.

    The ministry directive dated 14 March was addressed to News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Indian Broadcasting Foundation Association of Regional Television Broadcasters of India, all TV Channels, all MSOs, and all FM Stations.

    In the petition, Balaji had said that release of any material or the film itself would lead to colossal losses to the company.

     Balaji impleading 300 defendants of which 1 to 203 are websites allegedly engaged in the business of uploading content. The plaintiff apprehends that the said websites may even upload unlicensed copy of the plaintiffs film Kya Kool Hai Hum3, of which the plaintiff claims to be the producer and copyright holder. defendants no.204 to 238 are Internet Service Providers (ISP), who are engaged in the business of providing basic telephony, mobile services and broadband network all over the world and are covered by the Information Technology Act, 2000 as well as Copyright Act, 1957 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act).

     The Ministry of Communication & Information Technology has been impleaded as defendant no.239. The plaintiff stated that defendants no.204 to 239 have been impleaded so that the orders that may be passed by the court may be implemented by them by blocking the infringing URLs of websites such as defendants no.1 to 203. Defendants no.240 to260 and 260-274 are Multi System Operators (MSOs) and cable operators governed by the Cable Network RegulationAct 1995 and the TRAI Act. The plaintiff stated that various MSOs and cable operators, including in Delhi could be engaged in unauthorised unlicensed production and broadcast, on their local channels and through other means, of various pirated contents, including cinematograph films through their cable network. The apprehension of the plaintiff was that the said defendants may indulge in broadcast of the aforesaid copyright of the plaintiff, which at the time of the court order of 19 January was yet to be released (on 22 January) and Balaji apprehends will infringe the copyright m  the  aforesaid cinematograph film.

  • Total of 149 news and non-news pay channels violated adcap shows study

    Total of 149 news and non-news pay channels violated adcap shows study

    NEW DELHI: Even as the adcap case continues to drag with hearing slated for later this month, a study shows that a total of 149 pay channels including 28 news and current affairs continue to violate the regulations for telecasting a maximum of twelve minutes of advertisements and commercials.

    The report released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India shows that the number of violators among news channels has come down but that non-news channels has risen sharply as on 27 December 2015.

    Average duration per hour of Advertisements (Commercial & Self promotional) during peak hours (7pm ?10 PM) in Pay News Channels for the period 28 September to 27 December shows that the highest of these is 22.66 minutes by NDTV 24X7 and the lowest is 12.42 minutes by CNBC TV 18 Prime HD..

    Among pay non-news channels for the same period, the highest is 23.99 minutes by B4U Movies and the lowest is 12.13 by Sun TV Network’s Adhitya.

    There are at least twelve news and 37 non-news channels clocking more than fifteen minutes per hour.

    TRAI has made it clear that “the information is based on the data submitted by the broadcasters and TRAI bears no responsibility for correctness of same. As per information available with TRAI, rest of the Pay News and non-news channels are carrying less than 12 minutes of average duration per hour of advertisements (Commercial & Self promotional) during peak hours (7PM – 10 pm)”.

    While asking the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India not to take any coercive action against any channel pending hearing of the case, the Delhi High Court had asked all channels and TRAI to keep a record of the advertising time consumed including commercials.

    The petition had been filed by the News Broadcasters Association and some channels challenging the TRAI decision to implement the directive of 12 minutes contained in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry and TRAI are the respondents in the petition.

    After the Information and Broadcasting Ministry told the Court on 27 November that it was discussing the issue with broadcasters, the matter was put off to 11 February and then to 29 March. In the 11 February hearing, Discovery Communications moved for intervention while Home Cable sought early hearing.

    In its intervention MSO Home Cable Network (P) Ltd said it wanted to intervene as it was directly affected by the outcome of the present petition. It wanted the NBA petition to be dismissed and added: “The Pay channel broadcasters are profiteering at the expense of subscribers and the DPO’s. There is no justification for changing monthly subscription when commercial advertisements are inserted. The Standards of Quality of Service (Digital Addressable Cable TV Systems) Regulations 2012 (with Amendments thereafter) is justified to the extent they are applicable to Pay Channels. The pay channel broadcasters cannot charge the subscription fee while inserting commercials into the content or in the alternative, the subscribers have to be compensated for the revenue earned on the basis of their being subscribers of the channels.”

    Interestingly, I and B Minister Arun Jaitley had in January last year said that he was in favour of any ad cap in the print or electronic media.

    In the petition, the news channels have taken the plea that most of them are free to air and therefore do not get any subscription fee from the viewers as the GEC channels do.

  • Total of 149 news and non-news pay channels violated adcap shows study

    Total of 149 news and non-news pay channels violated adcap shows study

    NEW DELHI: Even as the adcap case continues to drag with hearing slated for later this month, a study shows that a total of 149 pay channels including 28 news and current affairs continue to violate the regulations for telecasting a maximum of twelve minutes of advertisements and commercials.

    The report released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India shows that the number of violators among news channels has come down but that non-news channels has risen sharply as on 27 December 2015.

    Average duration per hour of Advertisements (Commercial & Self promotional) during peak hours (7pm ?10 PM) in Pay News Channels for the period 28 September to 27 December shows that the highest of these is 22.66 minutes by NDTV 24X7 and the lowest is 12.42 minutes by CNBC TV 18 Prime HD..

    Among pay non-news channels for the same period, the highest is 23.99 minutes by B4U Movies and the lowest is 12.13 by Sun TV Network’s Adhitya.

    There are at least twelve news and 37 non-news channels clocking more than fifteen minutes per hour.

    TRAI has made it clear that “the information is based on the data submitted by the broadcasters and TRAI bears no responsibility for correctness of same. As per information available with TRAI, rest of the Pay News and non-news channels are carrying less than 12 minutes of average duration per hour of advertisements (Commercial & Self promotional) during peak hours (7PM – 10 pm)”.

    While asking the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India not to take any coercive action against any channel pending hearing of the case, the Delhi High Court had asked all channels and TRAI to keep a record of the advertising time consumed including commercials.

    The petition had been filed by the News Broadcasters Association and some channels challenging the TRAI decision to implement the directive of 12 minutes contained in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry and TRAI are the respondents in the petition.

    After the Information and Broadcasting Ministry told the Court on 27 November that it was discussing the issue with broadcasters, the matter was put off to 11 February and then to 29 March. In the 11 February hearing, Discovery Communications moved for intervention while Home Cable sought early hearing.

    In its intervention MSO Home Cable Network (P) Ltd said it wanted to intervene as it was directly affected by the outcome of the present petition. It wanted the NBA petition to be dismissed and added: “The Pay channel broadcasters are profiteering at the expense of subscribers and the DPO’s. There is no justification for changing monthly subscription when commercial advertisements are inserted. The Standards of Quality of Service (Digital Addressable Cable TV Systems) Regulations 2012 (with Amendments thereafter) is justified to the extent they are applicable to Pay Channels. The pay channel broadcasters cannot charge the subscription fee while inserting commercials into the content or in the alternative, the subscribers have to be compensated for the revenue earned on the basis of their being subscribers of the channels.”

    Interestingly, I and B Minister Arun Jaitley had in January last year said that he was in favour of any ad cap in the print or electronic media.

    In the petition, the news channels have taken the plea that most of them are free to air and therefore do not get any subscription fee from the viewers as the GEC channels do.

  • Jaitley, Bar Council deplore attacks on media; SC asks police to ensure safety

    Jaitley, Bar Council deplore attacks on media; SC asks police to ensure safety

    NEW DELHI: Even as the Bar Council of India condemned the attacks by lawyers on media persons at Patiala House courts where the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union Kanhaiya Kumar was being produced, the Supreme Court asked the Delhi Police to ensure the security of all including media persons.

    The apex court also agreed to hear a petition by media persons in this regard. 

    Information and Broadcasting Minister Arun Jaitley, himself an eminent lawyer, also condemned the attacks in a tweet, saying: “Media has an unhindered right to report. Attack on Media persons is highly improper and condemnable.” 

    Media persons in Mumbai and Kolkata also held demonstrations in support of their Delhi colleagues. As was previously reported by Indiantelevision.com, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) also deplored the attacks.

    Earlier reiterating that attacks on journalists discharging their professional duties was not acceptable, the Press Council of India had sought a report from the Delhi Police regarding the assault on media persons in the Patiala House Court complex.

    The events at Patiala House court resulted in a massive outrage and top editors of national media and hundreds of journalists yesterday demonstrated on the streets demanding action against those involved in beating up members of their fraternity in police presence and sought Supreme Court’s intervention in protecting freedom of speech.