ITV

Tag: Supreme Court

  • 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).

    Headed by Joint Secretary (Broadcasting) Supriya Sahu, directors Priyamvada and G. Jayanthy and S O Kamlesh Makker. While Centre for Media Studies director P Vasanti is a non-official representative of YWCA, Under Secretary (Films) S.B. Pandey is the lone male member.

  • Idea, CricBuzz & OnMobile see ‘Stars’

    Idea, CricBuzz & OnMobile see ‘Stars’

    MUMBAI: Looks like Star India is having the last laugh in an ongoing legal battle with mobile service operators and MVAS providers – Idea Cellular, Akuate Internet (Cricbuzz) and OnMobile Global.

     

    In a significant ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld Star India’s claim to mobile and digital rights for cricket matches and asked the defendants to maintain status quo as on 13 March. The apex court directed Idea Cellular, Cricbuzz and OnMobile Global to deposit Rs 10 lakh per cricket match in the court, before disseminating live scores, while clarifying that a match would include a test match, a one-day match as well as a T-20 match. This money won’t flow to Star India but will go to the court until the matter is decided.

     

    The Supreme Court also directed the firms disseminating live alerts to maintain true and lawful accounts of the receipts in respect of the SMS alerts they provide to their subscribers, with the same to be made available to the court on a monthly basis.

     

    The Supreme Court didn’t take into consideration an earlier order of a divisional bench of the Delhi High Court that ruled against Star India’s stand. The apex court on 30 September saw merit in Star India’s argument and asked the parties to maintain status quo as on 13 March, when a single bench of the Delhi High Court had ruled in favour of Star India.

     

    It all began last year when Star India filed a case against CricBuzz and OnMobile Global over the reporting of cricket scores. Initially, the Delhi High Court ordered CricBuzz and OnMobile Global to deposit Rs 15 lakh per match, apart from maintaining statements of accounts and filing them in court. Earlier this month though, a division bench of the High Court ruled that mobile operators, content aggregators and other entities were free to provide SMS alerts and ball-by-ball commentary.

     

    The HC bench arrived at this decision after taking into consideration the right to freedom of speech as also the concept of ‘hot news’ which means that Star’s rights to report information (read: scores) via mobile – licensed from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) – are ‘exclusive’ only till such time as the news (read: scores) is ‘hot’ or in other words ‘fresh’.

     

    A critical statement in the Delhi HC judgment read: “Neither Star nor BCCI can be permitted to say that mentioning ‘mobile’ rights and auctioning them, would ipso facto legitimise the parceling away of right to disseminate information, without first establishing that the right or exclusive domain over such rights existed in the first instance.”

     

    In the wake of the HC decision, Star was left with little option but to appeal to the Supreme Court.

     

    And now that the apex body has upheld Star’s position on mobile and digital rights, Star India president – sports Nitin Kukreja says: “The interim order is a testament to the fact that the honourable Supreme Court sees merit in Star India’s argument on mobile and digital rights. We have always maintained that lack of clarity on digital rights has been severely compromising the ability of rights/event owners to invest in creating great experiences for sports fans. This clarity is essential for event owners, who put in all the effort and investment in creating/setting up these exclusive properties to monetise untapped/new revenue streams, which but for the lack of clarity/legislation, would have accrued to them in the natural course of matters.”

     

    As things stand, Star is the clear winner but only time will tell if all the back and forth was worth it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • BCCC advises TV channels against showing acid attacks

    BCCC advises TV channels against showing acid attacks

    NEW DELHI: The Broadcast Content Complaints Council (BCCC) has advised all television channels to be ‘extremely sensitive to the excruciating physical and psychological agony of acid attack victims’ and ‘mitigate the overwhelming implications of any such depiction’ in their reports.

     

    In an advisory sent to TV channels, the BCCC has said it is time broadcasters were also sensitised against showing acid attacks.

     

    ‘This is even more pertinent for various crime-based programmes since these shows often depict an acid attack case in some detail through the dramatised version of a real incident’, the advisory said.

     

    It said it had received several complaints relating to content that depicts acid attacks in TV programmes. In almost all cases, the targets are women and girls.

     

    The Council considers acid attacks to be ‘among the most heinous of crimes with traumatic, irreversible physical and psychological consequences to the victim’.

     

    The Supreme Court has taken cognisance of the growing number of acid attacks in India and directed the State to frame and implement most stringent rules to regulate the sale of acid and other corrosive substances.

  • NDTV files fresh appeal against Nielsen in New York supreme court

    NDTV files fresh appeal against Nielsen in New York supreme court

     MUMBAI: New Delhi Television (NDTV) ain’t giving up on its law suit against global research agency Nielsen on account of the TV ratings service it runs in India with global advertising powerhouse WPP under TAM Media Research. Last week, the newscaster filed fresh papers with a New York state supreme court appealing against its decision earlier this year to dismiss its $1 billion suit against Nielsen and WPP.This time, however, it has named only Nielsen group companies in the appeal, whereas earlier it had included both in its suit.

    While dismissing the suit, the New York court had then said that NDTV’s claim and complaint should be filed and contested in Indian courts where TAM, the Nielsen-WPP joint venture is based and not in New York.

    NDTV’s nine month old lawsuit states that it has lost hundred of millions of dollars in ad revenues on account of the inaccuracies in TAM’s TV ratings service in India and that it needs to be compensated for the loss. It had alleged that TAM staff took bribes in exchange for overstating ratings.

    In its fresh appeal (a copy of which is with indiantelevision.com) which it filed with the court on 15 May, NDTV sought a reversal, annulment or modification of the trial’s court’s dismissal of its application earlier as it has mistakenly ruled that the Big Apple is not a proper venue for the suit because it “failed to accept as true the allegations” that the New York-based Nielsen owns and controls the “Nielsen process” upon which its ratings services around the world operate.

    Additionally, the NDTV appeal has stated that the court has disregarded the fact that Nielsen’s hq and “senior management (and several key witnesses and thus evidence) are located in New York and the court wrongly concluded that the defendants were foreign.”

    The court has also erred earlier in dismissing its amended complaint, NDTV has stated in its appeal, “for its failure to include an indispensable party (TAM)..the court wrongly concluded that its claims address TAM’s misconduct in India when in fact NDTV’s claims are based solely on the conduct of the New York-based Nielsen.”

    “The Indian courts likely lack jurisdiction over Nielsen,” as it is based out of New York, pleads the new NDTV filing. “Contrary to the trial court’s rulings..we properly pled that Nielsen breached a duty it owed to NDTV and the breach resulted in a compensable injury.”

    NDTV has pointed out that it had brought the bugs in TAM’s ratings process in India to WPP’s and Nielsen’s notice. Both had promised to have these rectified, but did nothing about it forcing it to take the matter to the US courts.

    WPP and Nielsen had denied NDTV’s claims and said that the case should be argued in India and the not in the US, which the New York court had accepted while dismissing the case.

    TAM, on its part, in recent times, has been making efforts to spruce up its act, aiming to guarantee impartiality of its ratings service. It has set up a vigilance desk’, headed by a former senior policeman, and a ‘transparency panel’ of regulation experts. But some broadcasters have said these changes have come too late.

  • Govt. counters ads saying Gutkha less harmful than tobacco: Azad

    NEW DELHI: The health and family welfare ministry recently published a public notice highlighting the harmful effects of all forms of tobacco use and the desirability of quitting tobacco use in response to a few advertisements published in leading national and regional dailies raising questions on whether Gutkha was a food product.

    Health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad told Parliament that the advertisements by a body named Smokeless Tobacco Association also implied that Gutkha was less harmful than smoking forms of tobacco. It said food safety regulations were discriminatory in nature.

    The advertisement of pan masala (without tobacco or nicotine) is regulated by the food safety and standards (packaging and labelling) regulations, 2011, dated 1 August 2011, notified by the food safety and standards authority of India. Under sections 30 and 31 of this regulation, pan masala can be advertised subject to the condition that every package of pan masala and advertisement relating thereto carries the warning “Chewing of pan masala or supari is injurious to health.”

    Section 5 of The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA 2003) prohibits all forms of advertisements (direct/indirect) of tobacco products including gutka, except at the points of sale or on the tobacco product packs. Moreover, under food safety regulations, the production, sale, distribution and storage of food items such as gutka and pan masala containing tobacco or nicotine is prohibited.

    Litigation on these issues are pending before the Supreme Court, the Minister said.

  • Supreme court gives entertainment tax relief to DTH operators

    Supreme court gives entertainment tax relief to DTH operators

    NEW DELHI: In a major relief to direct-to-home operators in the state, the Supreme Court last week held that the Madhya Pradesh government cannot demand entertainment tax on DTH services under the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936.

    Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R M Lodha said in a judgment that Act ‘cannot be extended to cover DTH operations.’

    Accepting appeals by Tata Sky against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court of August 2010, the apex court said: ‘Neither the provision of section 4(1) nor any of the modes provided under section 4(2) of the Act can be made applicable for collection of duty on DTH operations. Further, it is noted above that section 8 provides rule making powers. In exercise of the powers under that provision, the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Rules 1942 were framed. A perusal of the Rules makes it absolutely clear that the collection mechanism under the 1936 Act is based on revenue stamps stuck to the tickets issued by the proprietor for entry to the specified place where entertainment is held.’

    The Court added: ‘Under section 3 read with section 2(d) and section 2(a), the charge or levy of tax is attracted only if an entertainment takes place in a specified place or locations and persons are admitted to the place on payment of a charge to the proprietor providing the entertainment. In the present case, as DTH operation is not a place-related entertainment, it is not covered by the charging section 3 read with section 2(a) and 2(b) of the 1936 Act. Consequently, the question of going to section 2(d)(iv) does not arise.’

    The revenue department had demanded 20 per cent entertainment duty on subscription payment from the DTH operator, which had commenced services in August 2006 all over the country including Madhya Pradesh.

    Tata Sky in their appeals had contended that DTH broadcast is a notified service under the Finance Act and it is chargeable to service tax. For the purpose of levy of service tax, “broadcasting” has been defined specifically under section 65(15) of the Finance Act. The broadcasting services were brought within the purview of the service tax under section 65(105)(zk) of the Finance Act 1994 as amended with effect from 16 July 2001. Later on, DTH service was brought within the purview of the service tax with effect from 16 June 2006.

    Tata Sky contended that it does not use any infrastructure from the State for its DTH broadcasts.

    On 5 May 2008, the State Government issued a gazette notification fixing 20 per cent entertainment duty in respect of every payment made for admission to an entertainment other than cinemas, videos cassette recorders and cable service.

    The State on 1 August 2009 passed the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax (Amendment) Act, 2009. By the Amendment Act, the failure to produce accounts and documents as required by the Excise Commissioner or any officer authorized by the State Government was made a penal offence.

    However, the apex court noted that this amendment ‘did not introduce any provision in the Parent Act with respect to levy of entertainment duty on DTH broadcasting.’

    Referring to the notification of 5 May 2008, the apex court said ‘it is elementary that a notification issued in exercise of powers under the Act cannot amend the Act. Moreover, the notification merely prescribes the rate of entertainment duty at 20 per cent in respect of every payment for admission to an entertainment other than cinema, video cassette recorder and cable service. The notification cannot enlarge either the charging section or amend the provision of collection under section 4 of the Act read with the 1942 Rules. It is therefore clear that the notification in no way improves the case of the State.’

    The Court also said that the controversy in all the three appeals relates to the demand and realization of entertainment tax under the 1936 Act, which means for the period between the commencement of operation by the appellant in the year 2006 and 31 March 2011, the day prior to the coming into force of the new Act, called the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adiniyam 2011.

  • IBF moves Supreme Court over DAS Phase II hold-ups

    IBF moves Supreme Court over DAS Phase II hold-ups

    NEW DELHI: Concerned with the increase in the number of petitions that have been filed in the past two weeks leading to a stay on the spread of cable TV digitisation (Digital Addressable System – DAS) in several states, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) has knocked on the doors of the country‘s apex court seeking a stay on the stay orders issued by different high courts in the country.

    The IBF petition seeks to ensure that digitisation is implemented as scheduled and without any hindrance. The supreme court has posted the matter for hearing on 23 April.

    The special leave petition filed by the IBF did come up before the SC, however the apex court refused to intervene after it was informed that the Karnataka high court judgment on the case was due.

    The bench comprising chief justice Altamas Kabir therefore felt that the court would wait for the Karnataka High Court judgment before taking up the matter.

    In the meanwhile, the Karnataka and Gujarat high courts have dismissed the petition petitions filed by Karnataka State Cable TV Operators Association (KSCOA) and Cable Operators Association of Gujarat (COAG) respectively paving the way for DAS Phase II to commence.

    However, petitions challenging digitisation are still pending in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court. These affect the cities of Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Bhopal. Indore, and Jabalpur.

    According to IBF president Man Jit Singh, the broadcasters association wants a full and final closure on this issue by the Supreme Court so that digitisation can progress smoothly across its various phases as has been drawn up by the government in conjunction with industry.

    Also read:

    DAS extension pleas quashed in Karnataka and Gujarat

    Gujarat HC dismisses petitions seeking DAS extension

    Karnataka HC dismisses KSCOA petition, paves way for analogue cable switch-off

  • SC to give judgement on Dutt’s surrender deadline extension plea tomorrow

    SC to give judgement on Dutt’s surrender deadline extension plea tomorrow

    MUMBAI: The Supreme Court will declare its decision on the extension of Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt surrender deadline tomorrow.

    Dutt had, on Monday, appealed to the Supreme Court of India that he be given some more time to surrender before he begins his prison term citing work commitments.

    Last month court announced its decision to sentence Dutt to five years in prison for illegal possession of weapons supplied by Muslim mafia bosses linked to the terror attack that killed 257 people in Mumbai.

    The actor has maintained that he knew nothing about the bombing plot and that he asked for the guns to protect his family during sectarian riots in Mumbai.

    Son of legendary actors Sunil Dutt and Nargis, Dutt has previously served 18 months in jail on the same charges. He was released later and the actor has since then resurrected his acting career and delivered some appreciated performances. He won a lot of adulation for his portrayal of the ruthless Kancha Cheena in the 2012 remake of blockbuster Agneepath (by the same name).

  • A State Govt. cannot ban a film cleared by the Censors, says Tewari even as Court extends stay on Vishwaroopam

    A State Govt. cannot ban a film cleared by the Censors, says Tewari even as Court extends stay on Vishwaroopam

    NEW DELHI: The ban on Kamal Haasan‘s Vishwaroopam by the Tamil Nadu Government may turn out to be a major issue of the powers of the state vis-?-vis the Central Board of Film Certification which functions under the Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry.

    Even as I and B Minister Manish Tewari asked the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider its decision to ban the film, the Madras High Court stayed the release of the film till 28 January with the judge saying he would see the film for himself on 26 January before a final decision.

    Tewari said, “The Supreme Court of India in Prakash Jha‘s matter (relating to Aarakshan) had the occasion of considering the various provisions of the Cinematograph Act and juxtaposing them against the law and order powers which the state government has under the Constitution.”

    “And the Supreme Court was very categorical that Article 246, seventh schedule, list one, entry sixty gives the central government the powers to certify films for exhibition and once the Central Board for Film Certification has taken a particular view, it binds all the other instrumentalities of the state.”

    “I suggest that Tamil Nadu government peruse that judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash Jha‘s case before coming to any conclusion which may fall foul of the very clear directive which the court has given,” he said.

    Haasan had approached the Court following protests from Muslim groups asking to impose a ban on the film. The film was slated for release this Friday.

    Earlier reacting to the demand for a ban, Haasan had written in a letter: “While I am touched by the voices in support for me and my film, I am appalled at how my film is construed to be against my Muslim brothers.”

    “I have been ruthlessly used as a vehicle by small groups who seek political profile. Icon bashing is a great way to be noticed when you are not one yourself. It is happening again and again. Any neutral and patriotic Muslim will surely feel pride on seeing my film. It was designed for that purpose,” Haasan‘s said.