hafta Brazzers studyolarinda calisip emek sarfeden koca memeli Phoenix Marie izin porno indir gununde de kocasina vermeye karar veriyor Kocasinin da Brazzers icin calistigini unutmus porno video sayilir Kendi yatak odasinda oyle profesyonel bir seks yapiyor ki cekici hatun yine redtube harikalar yaratmis seksi guzel hatun sert erkeklerden ve koca penislerden cok hoslaniyor porno video guzel zenci hatun bu seferde genc bir erkek ile geldigi evde muhabbetin dibine porno vuruyor Zenci kari seksiligi ile adami kendinden ediyor resmen adam kari karsisinda daha fazla dayanamiyor
Log in

Login to your account

Password *
Remember Me
India's Leading Source for Broadcasting & Broadband Information - CableQuest Magazine
HomeArticlesDigitizationTRAI Regulations being ping ponged between Courts
Wednesday, 11 April 2018 06:23

TRAI Regulations being ping ponged between Courts

email this page

What does a ball do? It moves when it is hit. There are many ways to extend the time limit of a case; moving from court to court, judge to judge is one way, though no one can complain as the judiciary is over-burdened with millions of pending cases. But who will shed a tear on consumers’ interests getting eroded in the dance of a case?

Recently, a surprising but equally thought-provoking scenario emerged when the TRAI tariff case reached the Supreme Court and then sent back to the Madras High Court. Should we say that the wheel is moving at least? 


What is TRAI Tariff Order?

According to the TRAI regulation and tariff order, bouquets should not be a mix of pay channels and free-to-air (FTA) channels. Also, high definition and standard definition formats of the same channel cannot be in the same bouquet.

The order also says that a bouquet of pay channels should not contain any pay channel where the Maximum Retail Price is more than ` 19. The MRP of a bouquet should not be more than 85% of the sum of a-la-carte MRP of pay channels constituting the bouquet. TRAI Tariff Order also caps the discounts of MRP of a bouquet at 15%.

However, these restrictions made to benefit the consumers did not go will with the broadcasters who have gone to the Madras HC challenging them.

Star and Vijay TV say that the tariff order and the interconnection regulation’s many provisions are unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of the TRAI Act, 1997. They contended that the issue of channel pricing is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of TRAI conferred under the TRAI Act, 1997 as the same is protected under the Copyright Act.

The regulator had notified the tariff order and interconnection regulation for the broadcasting sector on 3 March 2017. But Star India and Vijay Television had challenged the TRAI’s tariff order and regulation in the consultation stage in December 2016.


Hc’s Split Verdict: 

In the first week of March 2018, the two-member bench of Madras High Court  gave a split verdict on Star India and Vijay Television’s petitions challenging the  tariff order and interconnection regulations. The bench had the Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar.

Justice M Sundar allowed the petitioners opposing TRAI to quash the tariff order and interconnection regulation but Chief Justice Indira Banerjee has given the dissenting judgement. But at the same time, Banerjee held that the clause putting a cap of 15% to the discount on the MRP of a bouquet is arbitrary. According to her, provision is not enforceable.

Following a split verdict, the matter was decided to be placed before a third Judge.


HC Justice Sunder’s verdict:

 Justice Sundar noted that the consumers whose interests have been sought to be protected through the regulation have not complained anywhere about exploitation by the broadcasters. He said: “Owing to the narrative, discussion and all that have been set out supra, those of the impugned provisions in the said regulations and said tariff order which touches upon content of the programmes of broadcasters are liable to be struck down as not in conformity with the parent Act /plenary Act.”

He added: “These provisions, i.e., clause 11(2) in the said Regulations as also clause 4 (2) in the said tariff order can be operated if it can be operated for other provisions of the said Regulations and said tariff order, other than those which we have struck down.”


HC Chief Justice Indira Banerjee’s stand:

Dissenting against Justice Sunder, Chief Justice Indira Banerjee said that the amendment of the Copyright Act in 2012 does not take away the power of TRAI to fix rates of broadcasting services or to regulate the manner of offering service under Section 11 read with Section 36 of the TRAI Act.

As a matter of fact, during the 2012 Amendment, the parliament amended Section 39A of the Copyright Act to make Sections 30A, 33, 33A, 34, 35 and 35 applicable to broadcast reproduction rights under Section 37.

The Chief Justice added the Broadcast Reproduction Right is not an all-encompassing right that eclipses all other legislations and circumscribes the power of TRAI. The Broadcast Reproduction Right is only a right of the broadcaster under the Copyright Act to protect its broadcast from exploitation by a third party.

She also said that the regulator has not fixed any upper limit or cap for the broadcasters in pricing their channels. It is open to the broadcasters to declare any particular channel as a pay channel or a free channel. 

She ruled: “Maybe bouquets are popular in the market and attract viewers, who subscribe to such bouquets. It is still open to the writ petitioners to offer bouquets. It can also offer bouquets and some popular channels as pay channels.”

Banerjee concluded: “I am unable to agree with the conclusion of M. Sundar J. that the provisions of the impugned Regulation and the impugned Tariff Order are not in conformity with the TRAI Act.”


Matter reaches Supreme Court: 

On 12 March, the Supreme Court announced to hear the TRAI Tariff Order matter. In fact, the telecom regulator, in February, filed an application before the apex court seeking to vacate the order that directed the regulator to maintain status quo till the matter is before the Supreme Court.

TRAI filed the application as the Madras High Court had not pronounced the judgement in the matter even after reserving in August 2017. And following a split verdict by the Madras High Court further prompted TRAI to appeal in the SC. 

The SC also came to know that the Model Interconnect Agreement (MIA) and the Standard Interconnect Agreement (SIA) forming part of the regulation have been challenged by the Cable Operators Welfare Association in the Kerala High Court. The matter is still pending before the HC and no interim order has been passed.


Case back to Madras HC:

The matter reaching the SC assured everyone that the ‘Moksh’ is near, but the apex court on 12 March sent the case back to the Madras High Court, asking it to dispose the case within a month. The SC said that if the Madras High Court fails to pronounce the judgement within the given time, it will take a decision on the matter.

The SC ruled: “It is not disputed that the judgment has been given by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court but the two judges have taken a conflicting views and the matter stands referred to a third Judge. In view of above we request the third Judge to decide the matter as far as possible within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

While TRAI is not happy over the transfer of the case back to square one, broadcasters may feel easy as they get more time. 

“We make it clear that this order is being passed in view of the fact that the matter has been pending for quite some time and the interim order is in operation.

Consumers can only hope the best as the SC will take a final decision on the matter if the Madras HC fails to do it in a month’s time, which is 11 April 2018.

email this page

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Cable Quest Annual Issue 2019
One 2 BHK Flat Available
Cabsat Banner
Cabsat Banner 2020
Convergence India 2020
Wanted - English Journalist, Excel Operator, Web Marketing
Subscribe to Cable Quest


January 2020
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1

Latest News

Magazine Archives Year 2014-2015

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - June 2015

    Jun 2015

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - May 2015

    May 2015

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - April 2015

    Apr 2015

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - March 2015

    Mar 2015

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - February 2015

    Feb 2015

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - January 2015

    Jan 2015

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - December 2014

    Dec 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - November 2014

    Nov 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - October 2014

    Oct 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - September 2014

    Sep 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - August 2014

    Aug 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - July 2014

    Jul 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - June 2014

    Jun 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - May 2014

    May 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - April 2014

    Apr 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - March 2014

    Mar 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - February 2014

    Feb 2014

  • Cable Quest Magazine Archive - January 2014

    Jan 2014

Do you have a Complaint

World of Spiritual & Divine Thoughts | Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji

hızlı öfkeli 8 izle canlı maç izle hd film izle film izlecanlı maç izle

Right Click

No right click