ITV

Tag: Supreme Court

  • HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC

    HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC

    NEW DELHI: The registry of the Supreme Court has finally sent to all the concerned high courts the directive of the apex court for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions’.

    Court registry officials told indiantelevision.com that the order of the apex court of early this month had been sent on 16 April. A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that court to fix a date.

    The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various high courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.

    Earlier, the apex court had accepted the plea of the central government that ‘it would be justand proper for this court to withdraw all those cases pending in different high courtsand transfer the same to Delhi High Court.’

    In its order of 1 April, justices V Gopala Gowda and Arjun Mishra had said on the transfer petition filed by the central government that ‘in future, if any case on the same legalquestion is filed before the high court(s), such case(s) shall also be transferred to theDelhi High Court’.

    The Supreme Court registry was directed to communicate the order tothe registrar general(s) of the respective high courts for transmitting the records of thecases pending before the respective high courts to Delhi High Court.

    The order took on record the fact that the All Sikkim Cable Operators Association
    had withdrawn from the High Court of Sikkim. The court also noted that one petitioner, JBM Cable Network, had refused to accept notice but this service would be considered sufficient. Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January written to its counsel in Punjab and Haryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.

    Buit later, the ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one high court gives a stay, another high court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the high court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

    Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

    Meanwhile, cases are pending in the high courts of Bombay, Hyderabad (with separate petitions for Telengana and Andhra Pradesh), Allahabad, Assam, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh for the entire states, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.
    In Karnataka, three individual stakeholders have got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay.

    The Bombay High Court had referred in its order to the argument by counsel that the Supreme Court in the Kusum Ingot case had said that if similar circumstances persist in other states, then they can pass an order similar to one passed by an earlier court.

  • HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC

    HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC

    NEW DELHI: The registry of the Supreme Court has finally sent to all the concerned high courts the directive of the apex court for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions’.

    Court registry officials told indiantelevision.com that the order of the apex court of early this month had been sent on 16 April. A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that court to fix a date.

    The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various high courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.

    Earlier, the apex court had accepted the plea of the central government that ‘it would be justand proper for this court to withdraw all those cases pending in different high courtsand transfer the same to Delhi High Court.’

    In its order of 1 April, justices V Gopala Gowda and Arjun Mishra had said on the transfer petition filed by the central government that ‘in future, if any case on the same legalquestion is filed before the high court(s), such case(s) shall also be transferred to theDelhi High Court’.

    The Supreme Court registry was directed to communicate the order tothe registrar general(s) of the respective high courts for transmitting the records of thecases pending before the respective high courts to Delhi High Court.

    The order took on record the fact that the All Sikkim Cable Operators Association
    had withdrawn from the High Court of Sikkim. The court also noted that one petitioner, JBM Cable Network, had refused to accept notice but this service would be considered sufficient. Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January written to its counsel in Punjab and Haryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.

    Buit later, the ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one high court gives a stay, another high court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the high court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

    Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

    Meanwhile, cases are pending in the high courts of Bombay, Hyderabad (with separate petitions for Telengana and Andhra Pradesh), Allahabad, Assam, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh for the entire states, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.
    In Karnataka, three individual stakeholders have got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay.

    The Bombay High Court had referred in its order to the argument by counsel that the Supreme Court in the Kusum Ingot case had said that if similar circumstances persist in other states, then they can pass an order similar to one passed by an earlier court.

  • Committee set up to monitor Government advertisements in accordance with Supreme Court directions

    Committee set up to monitor Government advertisements in accordance with Supreme Court directions

    NEW DELHI: A three-member committee headed by former chief election commissioner B.B. Tandon is to address issues related to Content Regulation in government advertising.

    The Information & Broadcasting ministry has set up the committee in compliance with the Supreme Court directions dated 13 May 2015 and the other members are News Broadcasters Association President and the editor-in-chief of India TV Rajat Sharma, and Ogilvy & Mather executive chairman and creative director, South Asia Piyush Pandey.

    The three member committee was selected by a three member panel constituted by ministry after obtaining advice from the Law ministry. The selection panel for constitution of the committee was headed by Press Council of India chairman Chandramauli Kumar Prasad.

    The terms of reference of the committee has been prepared by the I&B ministry in consultation with the Law ministry which includes the structure, functions and powers, duties and responsibilities of the committee. The Supreme Court had given the direction for ironing out the creases that are bound to show from time to time in implementation of the judgement of the apex court on Content Regulation of Government Advertising.

    Under the terms of reference, the committee would address complaints from the general public of violation on the implementation of the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court.

    The committee would also take suo motu cognizance of any violation / deviation of the guidelines of the Supreme Court and recommend corrective action to the ministry /department.

    The committee may recommend suitable changes to the Supreme Court guidelines to deal with new circumstances and situations that may arise from time to time, without making major policy changes within the policy direction of Supreme Court. The committee shall not be bound by any legal rules of evidence and may follow such procedure that appears to it to be fair and proper for swift settlement of grievances. For all decisions of the committee, the view of majority would prevail.

    The tenure of the members would be initially for a period of two years which shall be extendable by one year at a time, but overall extension should not be more than two times. The committee would be operational from Delhi and the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity would facilitate day to day functioning of the committee.

  • Committee set up to monitor Government advertisements in accordance with Supreme Court directions

    Committee set up to monitor Government advertisements in accordance with Supreme Court directions

    NEW DELHI: A three-member committee headed by former chief election commissioner B.B. Tandon is to address issues related to Content Regulation in government advertising.

    The Information & Broadcasting ministry has set up the committee in compliance with the Supreme Court directions dated 13 May 2015 and the other members are News Broadcasters Association President and the editor-in-chief of India TV Rajat Sharma, and Ogilvy & Mather executive chairman and creative director, South Asia Piyush Pandey.

    The three member committee was selected by a three member panel constituted by ministry after obtaining advice from the Law ministry. The selection panel for constitution of the committee was headed by Press Council of India chairman Chandramauli Kumar Prasad.

    The terms of reference of the committee has been prepared by the I&B ministry in consultation with the Law ministry which includes the structure, functions and powers, duties and responsibilities of the committee. The Supreme Court had given the direction for ironing out the creases that are bound to show from time to time in implementation of the judgement of the apex court on Content Regulation of Government Advertising.

    Under the terms of reference, the committee would address complaints from the general public of violation on the implementation of the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court.

    The committee would also take suo motu cognizance of any violation / deviation of the guidelines of the Supreme Court and recommend corrective action to the ministry /department.

    The committee may recommend suitable changes to the Supreme Court guidelines to deal with new circumstances and situations that may arise from time to time, without making major policy changes within the policy direction of Supreme Court. The committee shall not be bound by any legal rules of evidence and may follow such procedure that appears to it to be fair and proper for swift settlement of grievances. For all decisions of the committee, the view of majority would prevail.

    The tenure of the members would be initially for a period of two years which shall be extendable by one year at a time, but overall extension should not be more than two times. The committee would be operational from Delhi and the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity would facilitate day to day functioning of the committee.

  • Supreme Court allows photos of Governors, CMs and Ministers permitted in Government ads, in review of earlier order

    Supreme Court allows photos of Governors, CMs and Ministers permitted in Government ads, in review of earlier order

    New Delhi: In a reversal of its own judgment of 13 May last year, the Supreme Court today allowed the use of photographs of governors, chief ministers and ministers in government advertisements.

    The apex Court gave the judgment on a batch of petitions filed by the Centre and various states seeking a review relating to photos of politicians on government advertisements.

    The Court had in May last year given a direction on a public interest petition that only photographs of the Prime Minister, President and Chief Justice of India can be published in official media advertisements and not those of chief ministers. But the personal approval of these three authorities will be necessary before publication.

    The Centre in its petition argued that it is for the government to decide whose photographs should be published and what the content of advertisements should be. It said the court should refrain from interfering in such policy matters.

    The Centre also said barring photos of chief ministers on advertisements was against the federal structure.

    Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant who had passed the original directions said in September that the review petitions will be heard in open court.

    Prior to the order relating to hearing in open court, the judges perused the petitions of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Karnataka, and Assam in the chamber.

    The four states filed the review petitions challenging direction as being discriminatory and erroneous since it has permitted the photograph of the Prime Minister but not the chief ministers who too are elected representatives of the people.

    The states pointed out that the expert panel had recommended display of photos of CMs/governors as well but the Court had restrained the states from displaying photos of CMs/governors.

    The petitions had said: “There is nothing wrong if the publication issued by the government highlighting the achievements of the government contains photographs of the chief minister and the other ministers if they have made contribution to the achievements of the state government. The judgment is completely silent regarding the exclusion of the chief minister who is the head of the state government. If the photograph of the prime minister is permitted on the publication/advertisement then the photographs of the chief minister must have also been permitted by this court.”

    The original public interest litigations (PIL) filed by the NGOs Common Cause represented by counsel Meera Bhatia and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan had urged the apex Court to frame guidelines.

    Holding that taxpayers’ money cannot be spent to build “personality cults” of political leaders, the Court in May last had restrained ruling parties from publishing photographs of political leaders or prominent persons in government-funded advertisements.

    The Court had said such photos divert attention from the policies of the government, unnecessarily associate an individual with a government project, and pave the way for cultivating a “personality cult”.

    The observations of the Court were based on examination of the findings of a Committee led by Bangalore’s National Law University Director N.S. Madhava Menon set up in May last year which had submitted its report in October.

    The Committee had been set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry pursuant to an order of 23 April 2014. Other members were former Lok Sabha Secretary General T K Vishwanathan, and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar. Mr Bimal Julka, then Secretary in the I and B Ministry, was the member Secretary of the Committee.  

  • Supreme Court allows photos of Governors, CMs and Ministers permitted in Government ads, in review of earlier order

    Supreme Court allows photos of Governors, CMs and Ministers permitted in Government ads, in review of earlier order

    New Delhi: In a reversal of its own judgment of 13 May last year, the Supreme Court today allowed the use of photographs of governors, chief ministers and ministers in government advertisements.

    The apex Court gave the judgment on a batch of petitions filed by the Centre and various states seeking a review relating to photos of politicians on government advertisements.

    The Court had in May last year given a direction on a public interest petition that only photographs of the Prime Minister, President and Chief Justice of India can be published in official media advertisements and not those of chief ministers. But the personal approval of these three authorities will be necessary before publication.

    The Centre in its petition argued that it is for the government to decide whose photographs should be published and what the content of advertisements should be. It said the court should refrain from interfering in such policy matters.

    The Centre also said barring photos of chief ministers on advertisements was against the federal structure.

    Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant who had passed the original directions said in September that the review petitions will be heard in open court.

    Prior to the order relating to hearing in open court, the judges perused the petitions of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Karnataka, and Assam in the chamber.

    The four states filed the review petitions challenging direction as being discriminatory and erroneous since it has permitted the photograph of the Prime Minister but not the chief ministers who too are elected representatives of the people.

    The states pointed out that the expert panel had recommended display of photos of CMs/governors as well but the Court had restrained the states from displaying photos of CMs/governors.

    The petitions had said: “There is nothing wrong if the publication issued by the government highlighting the achievements of the government contains photographs of the chief minister and the other ministers if they have made contribution to the achievements of the state government. The judgment is completely silent regarding the exclusion of the chief minister who is the head of the state government. If the photograph of the prime minister is permitted on the publication/advertisement then the photographs of the chief minister must have also been permitted by this court.”

    The original public interest litigations (PIL) filed by the NGOs Common Cause represented by counsel Meera Bhatia and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan had urged the apex Court to frame guidelines.

    Holding that taxpayers’ money cannot be spent to build “personality cults” of political leaders, the Court in May last had restrained ruling parties from publishing photographs of political leaders or prominent persons in government-funded advertisements.

    The Court had said such photos divert attention from the policies of the government, unnecessarily associate an individual with a government project, and pave the way for cultivating a “personality cult”.

    The observations of the Court were based on examination of the findings of a Committee led by Bangalore’s National Law University Director N.S. Madhava Menon set up in May last year which had submitted its report in October.

    The Committee had been set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry pursuant to an order of 23 April 2014. Other members were former Lok Sabha Secretary General T K Vishwanathan, and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar. Mr Bimal Julka, then Secretary in the I and B Ministry, was the member Secretary of the Committee.  

  • Fifteen cases for extension of Phase III DAS, Rathore says digitization nearly over in most parts

    Fifteen cases for extension of Phase III DAS, Rathore says digitization nearly over in most parts

    New Delhi: Parliament was told today that cases had been filed or were still pending in around fifteen cities or states seeking extension of the deadline of 31 December 2015 on the ground of shortage of set top boxes with regard to Phase III of Digitization Addressable System.

    Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore told the Rajya Sabha that courts in these places had either granted extension of two months or dismissed the petitions with the directions not to disconnect the cable TV network operated by the petitioners and allowed them to operate in analogue system for two to three months  

    These included Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Nashik, Orissa, Chandigarh, Allahabad, Indore, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Jaipur, Karnataka, Guwahati, Kolkata and Shimla etc.

    In its order, the Bombay high court had said: “Since the Andhra Pradesh high court and Sikkim high court have passed an order of status quo, in view of the observations made by the apex court in the case Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 254] and more particularly, paragraph 22 of the said order, the question of grant of interim order does not arise in this case.”

    The Hyderabad high court in the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh cases further extended the stay for 4 weeks beyond 29 February.

    The minister said that the Government was defending all the cases and had also filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court.

    Meanwhile, Rathore said digitization has almost been completed in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir, Maharashtra, Nagaland, Punjab, Sikkim, Uttrakhand, West Bengal and Andaman & Nicobar according to information received from stakeholders.

    The data provided by the multi system operators (MSOs), direct to home (DTH) and HITS operators shows that digitisation in Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli is nearing completion. In other states and Union Territories it is yet to be fully achieved.

    He said that public awareness campaigns were launched in print and electronic media to ensure timely completion.

    Since involvement of state governments was crucial for the implementation of digitization, 13 orientation workshops for state and district level nodal officers were held at both central and regional levels. Twelve regional units were established for coordination. Toll free helpline was made operational. A management information system (MIS) was developed wherein MSOs, DTH and HITS operators were entering the details of area wise seeding of STBs at least once a week.

    A total of 727 MSOs had been issued registration till 21 February and regular monitoring of progress was made.

    Referring to earlier phases, he said it had been completed in Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai had been completed on 31 October 2012, except in Chennai since some court cases are pending there.

    Phase-II of the cable TV digitization which covered 38 cities having the population more than 10 lakh has been completed by 31 March 2013 except in Coimbatore where some court cases are pending.

  • Fifteen cases for extension of Phase III DAS, Rathore says digitization nearly over in most parts

    Fifteen cases for extension of Phase III DAS, Rathore says digitization nearly over in most parts

    New Delhi: Parliament was told today that cases had been filed or were still pending in around fifteen cities or states seeking extension of the deadline of 31 December 2015 on the ground of shortage of set top boxes with regard to Phase III of Digitization Addressable System.

    Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore told the Rajya Sabha that courts in these places had either granted extension of two months or dismissed the petitions with the directions not to disconnect the cable TV network operated by the petitioners and allowed them to operate in analogue system for two to three months  

    These included Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Nashik, Orissa, Chandigarh, Allahabad, Indore, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Jaipur, Karnataka, Guwahati, Kolkata and Shimla etc.

    In its order, the Bombay high court had said: “Since the Andhra Pradesh high court and Sikkim high court have passed an order of status quo, in view of the observations made by the apex court in the case Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 254] and more particularly, paragraph 22 of the said order, the question of grant of interim order does not arise in this case.”

    The Hyderabad high court in the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh cases further extended the stay for 4 weeks beyond 29 February.

    The minister said that the Government was defending all the cases and had also filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court.

    Meanwhile, Rathore said digitization has almost been completed in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir, Maharashtra, Nagaland, Punjab, Sikkim, Uttrakhand, West Bengal and Andaman & Nicobar according to information received from stakeholders.

    The data provided by the multi system operators (MSOs), direct to home (DTH) and HITS operators shows that digitisation in Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli is nearing completion. In other states and Union Territories it is yet to be fully achieved.

    He said that public awareness campaigns were launched in print and electronic media to ensure timely completion.

    Since involvement of state governments was crucial for the implementation of digitization, 13 orientation workshops for state and district level nodal officers were held at both central and regional levels. Twelve regional units were established for coordination. Toll free helpline was made operational. A management information system (MIS) was developed wherein MSOs, DTH and HITS operators were entering the details of area wise seeding of STBs at least once a week.

    A total of 727 MSOs had been issued registration till 21 February and regular monitoring of progress was made.

    Referring to earlier phases, he said it had been completed in Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai had been completed on 31 October 2012, except in Chennai since some court cases are pending there.

    Phase-II of the cable TV digitization which covered 38 cities having the population more than 10 lakh has been completed by 31 March 2013 except in Coimbatore where some court cases are pending.

  • DAS Phase III stay extended in Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh

    DAS Phase III stay extended in Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh

    New Delhi: With the Supreme Court stating that the stay on Phase III of digital addressable system by the Bombay High Court is not pan-India, stakeholders in three states – Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh – have received further extensions for varying periods.

    While the Hyderabad High Court has clubbed the two cases of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and granted a four week extension, the Allahabad High Court extended the stay for three more months.

    The Hyderabad High Court which received the counter-affidavit from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, gave time to the petitioners in both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana – AP MSOs Federation and Federation of Telangana MSOs – to file their replies,

    The plea taken by both the petitioners had been the shortage of set top boxes, which had in late December led to a two month extension.

    The Supreme Court had made the observation on an appeal by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, which was subsequently withdrawn.

    In Allahabad, where the petitioners have also taken the plea of shortage of STBs, the High Court directed I&B Ministry as well as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to file counter-affidavits within four weeks.

     “In the meanwhile, we direct the respondents not to disconnect the cable TV network operated by the petitioner through the analogue system for a period of three months from today,” the court said.

    DAS Phase III has already been stayed for varying periods by High Courts in Assam, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh, for the entire states, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.

    In Karnataka, three individual stakeholders have got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay. However, MSOs and Local Cable Operators in various parts of Karnataka told indiantelevision.com that transmission is still being use in analogue mode even in areas that fall in Phase III but for which no stay has been obtained.

    Interestingly, Ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one High Court gives a stay, another High Court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the High Court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

    The Bombay High Court passed a unique judgment stating that the Hyderabad High Court order would be applicable across India as per the Supreme Court judgment in.

    Meanwhile, The Ministry has filed a similar petition and sought not merely vacation of the stay orders by various High Courts, but also clubbing the cases together.

    The meeting of the Phase III and Phase IV Task Force – the first to be held after the 31 December deadline of Phase III – was told by Ministry Joint Secretary (Broadcasting) R Jaya that the percentage achievement had increased from 76.45 per cent as on 30 December 2015 to 90.44 per cent as on 15 February 2016.

    It was also claimed that the seeding of set top boxes by multi system operators increased from 6.91 million (69.1 lakh) to 12.43 million (124.3 lakh) for the same period.

    DAS Phase III covers 33.18 million (331.8 lakh( TV households across 29 states and five Union Territories, after changes made in updates for various states.

    Although Phase III was aimed at covering all remaining urban areas in the country, Ministry sources admitted that several urban may now be clubbed with the rural areas where the deadline is 31 December 2016.

  • DAS Phase III stay extended in Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh

    DAS Phase III stay extended in Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh

    New Delhi: With the Supreme Court stating that the stay on Phase III of digital addressable system by the Bombay High Court is not pan-India, stakeholders in three states – Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh – have received further extensions for varying periods.

    While the Hyderabad High Court has clubbed the two cases of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and granted a four week extension, the Allahabad High Court extended the stay for three more months.

    The Hyderabad High Court which received the counter-affidavit from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, gave time to the petitioners in both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana – AP MSOs Federation and Federation of Telangana MSOs – to file their replies,

    The plea taken by both the petitioners had been the shortage of set top boxes, which had in late December led to a two month extension.

    The Supreme Court had made the observation on an appeal by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, which was subsequently withdrawn.

    In Allahabad, where the petitioners have also taken the plea of shortage of STBs, the High Court directed I&B Ministry as well as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to file counter-affidavits within four weeks.

     “In the meanwhile, we direct the respondents not to disconnect the cable TV network operated by the petitioner through the analogue system for a period of three months from today,” the court said.

    DAS Phase III has already been stayed for varying periods by High Courts in Assam, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh, for the entire states, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.

    In Karnataka, three individual stakeholders have got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay. However, MSOs and Local Cable Operators in various parts of Karnataka told indiantelevision.com that transmission is still being use in analogue mode even in areas that fall in Phase III but for which no stay has been obtained.

    Interestingly, Ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one High Court gives a stay, another High Court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the High Court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

    The Bombay High Court passed a unique judgment stating that the Hyderabad High Court order would be applicable across India as per the Supreme Court judgment in.

    Meanwhile, The Ministry has filed a similar petition and sought not merely vacation of the stay orders by various High Courts, but also clubbing the cases together.

    The meeting of the Phase III and Phase IV Task Force – the first to be held after the 31 December deadline of Phase III – was told by Ministry Joint Secretary (Broadcasting) R Jaya that the percentage achievement had increased from 76.45 per cent as on 30 December 2015 to 90.44 per cent as on 15 February 2016.

    It was also claimed that the seeding of set top boxes by multi system operators increased from 6.91 million (69.1 lakh) to 12.43 million (124.3 lakh) for the same period.

    DAS Phase III covers 33.18 million (331.8 lakh( TV households across 29 states and five Union Territories, after changes made in updates for various states.

    Although Phase III was aimed at covering all remaining urban areas in the country, Ministry sources admitted that several urban may now be clubbed with the rural areas where the deadline is 31 December 2016.