Delhi HC Directs Uninterrupted Continuation Of Transmission Of ‘TV9 Telugu’ News Channel
The Delhi High Court directed uninterrupted and unhindered continuation of ‘TV9 Telugu’ News Channel which was switched off by the service provider.
Associated Broadcasting Company Limited filed a batch of writ petitions seeking declarations that the disconnection/switching off of its channel by the service provider and wrongful restoration to create a farce was in wilful breach of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI’s) Interconnection Regulations 2017.
A Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna ordered, “… the petitioner has already filed petitions before TDSAT and has approached this Court only in the interregnum, since there is no Vacation Bench in the TDSAT. … Accordingly, it is directed that in terms of the submission made on behalf of respondent no. 2, the transmission of the television channel, i.e., ‘TV9 Telugu’ shall continue uninterruptedly and unhindered on the same position, as existing prior to 06th June, 2024.”
Senior Advocate Abhinav Mukerji represented the petitioner while CGSC Rakesh Kumar represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioner was a broadcaster of its channels and the respondents was a Multi System Operator i.e., a service provider under TRAI Act, 1997. There was a subsistent agreement mutually executed between the parties for broadcast of the petitioner’s channels by the respondent. It was submitted that despite the subsistence of a valid agreement, the respondent disconnected/switched off the petitioner’s channel ‘TV9 Telugu’ without any cause of action and without issuance of the mandatory disconnection notice as duly mandated by Clause 17 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 and one of the clauses of the said agreement.
It was further submitted that such disconnection violated Rule 17 of TRAI’s Interconnection Regulations pertaining to the mandatory 21 day’s prior notice regarding the disconnection of the channels. It was also submitted that the such action of the respondent caused significant reputational and financial loss to the petitioner and deprived its subscribers the access to the channel during a critical period. Hence, the petitioner sought immediate restoration of the channel. Moreover, it was submitted that since Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) was not functioning in the vacations and there was no Vacation Bench in the said Tribunal to hear and decide the subject matter, the petitioner approached the High Court via petitions.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “Learned Senior Counsel further submits that 62 lacs, out of 65 lacs of set top boxes, have been switched off for the channels of the petitioner. This is despite the fact that 'TV9 Telugu' channel is the top News Channel in Andhra Pradesh. Thus, it is submitted that respondent no.2 has acted contrary to the Regulations of the TRAI.”
The counsel for the Union of India contended before the Court that the writ petition was not maintainable as TDSAT is the authority where the petitioner ought to have filed the petitions and that the Centre was made a party solely for the purpose of bringing the petitions within the jurisdiction of the High Court. It was further argued that the writ petitions involved private commercial dispute between the petitioner and respondent wherein one party is in Andhra Pradesh and the other in Telangana.
The Court in that regard observed, “Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court at the outset records the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 that the transmission of the channel of the petitioner, i.e., ‘TV9 Telugu’ is uninterrupted and unhindered, and is being relayed in the states of Telangana, as well as Andhra Pradesh.”
The Court, therefore, directed that there shall be uninterrupted continuation of the petitioner’s channel. With regard to further grievances, it took note of the fact that the petitioner had already filed the petitions before TDSAT and hence, no further orders are required to be passed.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petitions.
Cause Title- Associated Broadcasting Company Private Limited v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4774)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Abhinav Mukerji, Advocates Payal Kakra, Shivam Mehrotra, and Pranav.
Respondents: CGSC Rakesh Kumar, GP Arnav Mittal, Advocates Sunil and K.L.N.V. Veeranjaneyulu
