ITV

Tag: Supreme Court

  • SC to hear Mouthshut.com’s plea challenging IT Rules 2011

    SC to hear Mouthshut.com’s plea challenging IT Rules 2011

    NEW DELHI: Come 13 January and the writ petition filed by Mouthshut.com, challenging the Information Technology Rules 2011 will be up for hearing in the Supreme Court.  

     

    The plea seeks to declare the IT Rules as violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantee freedom of expression. Mouthshut.com will be represented by senior counsel Harish Salve.

     

    Mouthshut.com, which is an online community for consumer reviews has asked the Court to rescind India’s Information Technology Rules 2011 that jeopardises the freedom of expression. The appeal declares the IT Rules to be offensive under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. “We are pleading with the highest court in the land to protect the rights of Indian citizens and consumers that are granted by the Constitution of India,” said MouthShut.com founder and CEO Faisal Farooqui.

     

    The portal has stuck to its own policy of taking down content only under legal coercion. But the IT rules state that ‘any affected person’ can simply send an email to request the removal of any content within 36 hours or they can lose their ‘safe harbour’ protection as an ‘intermediary, pay damages, legal fee and court time’. Web-based organisations need to have a difference between free expression and making feasible services.

     

    Farooqui further added, “We have been threatened with hundreds of legal notices, cybercrime complaints and defamation cases. At other times, officers from various police stations call our office, demanding deletion of various reviews or face dire consequences under the IT rules.”

     

    Farooqui said, “It is a privilege to be a citizen of a democracy like India, where an ordinary citizen can appeal to a powerful court. Laws are meant to ensure the well-being of the nation – its people and institutions. Despite good intentions, IT Rules fall short of doing that. This law has the potential to weaken or, worse, entirely corrode the robust protection that the constitution of India offers to the freedom of speech.”

  • Centre gets notice regarding broadcast media regulation

    Centre gets notice regarding broadcast media regulation

    MUMBAI: The debate regarding the need of an external body to govern broadcast media has been raging since long. It has now reached the Supreme Court via a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by NGO Mediawatch.

    The SC has taken cognisance of the PIL seeking the establishment of an independent regulatory body to overlook broadcast media and issued a notice to the centre regarding it. The News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Association of Radio Operators for India (AROI) and the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) have also been asked to submit their responses.

    The order was passed by a bench headed by chief justice P Sathasivam stating that the body is needed as the centre had failed to regulate content for the medium.

    The petition said: “For the last one and a half decades, the Ministry of I&B is perpetuating virtual anarchy in the realm of broadcast media regulation. Especially on the content regulation front, its broadcaster-appeasing and wait-and-watch policies marked by sheer ad-hocism and indifference to viewers’ interests are adversely affecting the rights of millions of broadcast media consumers. The Ministry as content regulator had failed completely in protecting the interests and basic rights of the audience. It has not constituted sufficient infrastructure and resources to ensure quick decision-making against offending channels and also not imposing deterrent penalties as provided by law.”

    The bench agreed to hear the PIL and clubbed it with a similar pending petition. The SC had on 29 November asked the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Communications and IT as well as the Press Council of India to respond to the PIL asking for guidelines to regulate TV content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Bollywood comes out in support of the LGBT community

    Bollywood comes out in support of the LGBT community

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

  • TRAI ad cap case: Judgement day dawns?

    TRAI ad cap case: Judgement day dawns?

    MUMBAI: Exactly a month after hearings first began in the ad cap case in the Telecom Disputes Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), the verdict is set to be pronounced today. The TDSAT has listed it in the cause list for 11 December.

     

    The case that is being fought by broadcasters led by the News Broadcasters Association(NBA) against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is all set to be given a new direction.

     

    Indiantelevision.com gives you the highlights of the broadcasters vs TRAI ad cap legal slugfest and the coincidental twist that came near the end.

     

    The NBA’s main contentions were that TRAI does not have the authority to regulate content and that the agreement between the two is not of a licensor and a licensee but is rather a registration. It also said that the TRAI had not fulfilled the laying requirements before parliament thus making the regulation invalid.

     

    However, the TRAI stated that there was no rule in the TRAI act saying that merely because they hadn’t done the laying requirements, the regulation cannot be implemented. It also claimed that according to the terms of the licence and by applying section 7 of the Cable TV Networks Act it was authorised to implement the regulation to ensure the customers get quality of content on TV.

     

    After hearing the NBA, the TRAI, music channels and some other channels the TDSAT had reserved the judgement. The twist that came last week was when in a separate case of BSNL vs TRAI and others, the Supreme Court had ruled that cases in which the validity of a regulation by TRAI is challenged, cannot be heard in the TDSAT and has to be appealed against in the High Court since by law a regulation needs to be passed through parliament. This has put the fate of the ad cap regulation in a fix since officially TRAI claims it is a regulation.

     

    We wonder how the TDSAT will decide the case. Most probably, the TDSAT will dismiss it and request the petitioners to move the Hight Court after the verdict the SC gave on Friday. Had the petition been regarding the application of the regulation, the TDSAT could still have decided on it. However, the SC judgement clearly states that TDSAT cannot take a call on the very act that created it. TDSAT was formed under section 14 of the TRAI act giving it legislative and administrative powers.

     

    Section 36, under which the regulation was formed clearly underlines that if it is framed, it needs to be consistent with the terms of the TRAI act.

     

    However, after the SC ruling, the TDSAT seems to have been rendered powerless to decide on this case, even after 20 days of hearings and a long wait for the result, which will now be affected by the SC ruling.

     

    If the broadcasters are asked to move the HC, it means more time for them to deliberate on the validity of the regulation. But it is possible that they will have to follow the 12 minute ruling till the time, the HC does not say anything about it.

  • Ad cap dispute to move to High Court?

    Ad cap dispute to move to High Court?

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

  • MSOs feel the heat in Kolkata

    MSOs feel the heat in Kolkata

    KOLKATA: It seems to be a really difficult time for the multi system operators (MSOs) in Kolkata. We have learnt that Kolkata Cable & Broadband Pariseva Ltd has been asked to pay a hefty amount to the government authorities as it has been avoiding the tax payment for quite some time.

    In another case, former CEO and managing director of Digicable Comm and now the head of the Kolkata operations of Hathway, Amit Nag, who was recently denied anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court, is allegedly untraceable. Sources indicate that the investigation may reach some other senior officials in the national MSO if he does not show up.

     
    Last week indiantelevision.com reported that two officials from Kolkata Cable & Broadband Pariseva Ltd – managing director Bijoy Kumar Agarwal and director Prasun Kumar Das – were arrested as the firm had not paid service tax to the tune of Rs 5.52 crore to the government exchequer.

    According to sources, the company has not paid the tax even after regularly collecting it from consumers and thus it has now been asked to pay around Rs 11-13 crore including the fine in the next 20-25 days.

    In the case of Nag, we have learnt that the national multi service operator Digicable had lodged an FIR against Nag alleging misuse of position and sharing of confidential data and digital materials like set top boxes and fibre optic wires.

    Siticable Kolkata director Suresh Sethia disclosed that Nag had allegedly deleted some sensitive data even when he was with Indian Cable Network Co (a Siticable affiliate in Kolkata) and now he has done the same with Digicable.

    Apparently, Nag had applied for a bail plea which was also rejected by division bench of Calcutta High Court.

    Sethia says: “We had filed a case against him on 1 January 2010 for deleting sensitive data like line diagrams and sharing of confidential data with competitors. Digicable has also complained of the same offence. In our case, the charge sheet was already filed in April 2013. In case of Digi, his bail request is cancelled and now he is absconding.”

    All this seems to be turning against the MSOs as the business community has even got a warning from the finance minister P Chidambaram that the government may arrest and prosecute the ‘chronic’ service tax evaders.

  • American SC upholds ban of political ads on public radio and television

    American SC upholds ban of political ads on public radio and television

    NEW DELHI : While lawyers dismantle many restrictions on political money, the rules affecting Morning Edition and Downton Abbey still stand tall. A federal court in San Francisco says public radio and TV stations cannot carry paid political ads.

     

    The 8-3 decision Monday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a ruling last April by a smaller panel of the court. NPR and PBS both joined the case as friends of the court.

     

    The court upheld the decades-old bar against political ads on public broadcasting stations, even as other restrictions have vanished over the years. One long-gone rule held that funders could only be listed by name.

     

    The case just decided – Minority Television Project vs. FCC – began as a bid to take any commercial advertising. Among the arguments rejected by the appeals court, the TV station invoked the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling of 2010, which allowed corporations to spend freely advocating for or against candidates..

     

    Two dissenting judges argued that the station did not get a fair shake because “judges like public radio and television, while pretty much nobody likes commercials.”

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

    LCOs challenge TRAI DAS order in High Court By Seema Singh

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

  • I&B sets up Internal Complaints Committee for female staff

    I&B sets up Internal Complaints Committee for female staff

    NEW DELHI: In its attempt to strengthen the mechanism for redressal of grievances of the female employees working with it, the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry has renamed the Women’s Cell in the Ministry which will now be known as ‘Internal Complaints Committee’. 

    The Committee will review the programmes and monitor implementation of development schemes for women in accordance with the guidelines suggested by the National Commission for Women. It will also function as the Complaint Committee in terms of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in a matter relating to sexual harassment in the work place, which has since been included in the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as Rule 3 C.

    Accordingly, this Committee will also look into all complaints of sexual harassment including such complaints filed against the heads of the media units under the administrative control of this Ministry in lines with Duty of Employer at workplace or other institution to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment in terms of guidelines and norms laid by Supreme Court in Vishakha & Others versus the State of Rajasthan and others (JT1997(7)SC 3847).