Regulators

Mumbai High Court postpones cable case to 18 June

http://www.indiantelevision.com/sites/drupal7.indiantelevision.co.in/files/styles/smartcrop_800x800/public/images/regulators-images/2015/11/14/Untitled-1.jpg?itok=W27DtcD6

MUMBAI: The trade was anxiously awaiting a decision but none was forthcoming. A division bench of the Mumbai High Court comprising Chief Justice CL Thakker and Dr Dhananjay Chandrachud today further postponed the crucial hearing of the "cable case" to 18 June 2003.

 

Chaitanya D Mehta, representing the chief petitioner Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of Parliament Kirit Somaiya and other politicians, opened proceedings by stating the original petition is not restricted merely to monthly cable charges payable by the consumer. Mehta stated that the other issues included disconnections, black outs by cable operators, incorrect disclosures and non payment of applicable taxes to the state and Central government.



During the court room proceedings a lot of inconsistent statements were made by the assembled lawyers. For instance, Mehta read out the applicable sections which stated that the Union government was empowered to dictate the ceiling rate of the monthly cable charges. However, it is important to note that he was quoting from the recently amended Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2002 which empowers the government to determine the ceiling price of free-to-air (FTA) channels - and not the pay channels. Also, industry sources present in the court mentioned that some of these sections will only become applicable from 14 July 2003 when conditional access system (CAS) commences in the metropolitan cities.



Mehta also appealed to the Lordships to postpone the hearing to 18 July as the Central government is supposed to ratify certain aspects of CAS by 17 July 2003 - three days after the implementation process commences!



However, Mehta was bang on target when he raised the issue of compliance. He pointed out that there could be 2 million subscribers in the city of Mumbai but the statistics available with the government indicated the figure was in the region of 4,47,000. He also mentioned that the government should be earning revenues of Rs 60 million per month instead of the Rs 13 million that it is getting. He questioned as to why the state and central government enforcement authorities (excise department, income tax department officials and the legal authorities such as the police) had failed to enforce and interpret the laws correctly.



Mehta wondered whether there was a nexus between the enforcement authorities and cable operators. He stated that the laws clearly said that cable operators must maintain a maintenance register in the prescribed form and produce (on demand by the enforcement authorities) information on all aspects of their business including the exact number of customers serviced.



Mehta also quoted sub sections 3, 4A, 5 amongst others which empowered enforcement authorities to seize equipment of defaulting cable operators. He pointed out that the broadcasters had admitted (in their petition as well as in public statements) that only 25 per cent of the actual subscriber base was declared by the cable trade.



This line of reasoning was seconded by Doordarshan / Prasar Bharati lawyer additional solicitor-general of Maharashtra SB Jaisinghani. Jaisinghani wondered as to why the enforcement authorities had failed to conduct a single raid on any cable operator till date. He appealed to the lordships to give the requisite instructions to the enforcement authorities.



The lawyers of the cable operators raised the issue of the chief petitioner (BJP MP Somaiya) misguiding the general masses by wrongly informing them (through banners in public places) that the High Court order of 7 March included an injunction against raising cable charges. One of the lawyers representing respondent No 25 (cable distributor Sada Kadam) and Mumbai Cable Operators Federation lawyer AM Saraogi urged the lordships to clarify that they had not passed an injunction. They said that the "political gimmick" was affecting the day-to-day cable business.



The lawyers representing the cable operators also stated that the consumers were taking recourse to the incorrect or partly correct interpretations made by the chief petitioners in their public communication and refraining from making monthly cable payments. They pointed out that petition of the chief petitioner mentioned that the broadcasters were charging Rs 240 per month for pay channels. They argued that the cable trade was willing to charge Rs 150 as long as the chief petitioner was willing to compensate the difference in amount.



Meanwhile, MSO InCablenet lawyer Janak Dwarkadas again requested the Lordships to give their verdict as the broadcasters were cutting signals to the MSOs for non-payment of dues whereas the consumers refused to pay in lieu of the incorrect messages sent out by the chief petitioners and politicians.



After the Lordships postponed the hearing to 18 June 2003, some of the assembled members of the cable trade mentioned that the case would drag on till July 2003 when CAS would come into effect.



"There is no will to sort out the problem. However, it is a win-win situation for the politicians. Even if their petition is dismissed, later on, they can admit that they tried their best and score political brownie points. But, the trade will continue to suffer due to consumers refusing to pay and taking recourse to the campaign of the politicians. With the decision being postponed, we shall have to battle on in order to collect our rightful dues," says a cable operator on condition on anonymity while speaking to indiantelevision.com.

Latest Reads

http://www.indiantelevision.com/sites/drupal7.indiantelevision.co.in/files/styles/340x340/public/images/tv-images/2017/02/20/trai-800x800%20%281%29.jpg?itok=sEWPQmM8
TRAI data: Mobile b'band subs get over DeMon in December 2016

This is good good news for the those in the OTT/SVOD/App ecosystem. According to the latest telecom subscription up to 31 December 2016 released by the Telecom Regulatory Authoriy of India (TRAI), Indian consumers quickly got over the demonetisation hiccup – at least as far as subscribing to...

Regulators TRAI
http://www.indiantelevision.com/sites/drupal7.indiantelevision.co.in/files/styles/340x340/public/images/tv-images/2017/02/20/supreme-court%20%281%29.jpg?itok=DH3lLi39
SC keeps TRAI request on tariff pending till Madras HC completes hearing

The Supreme Court today refused to step in to allow TRAI to issue final broadcast tariff regulations, saying it would wait for the final outcome of a case in Madras High Court on a similar matter. The case in the apex court now has been listed for late March.

Regulators High Court
http://www.indiantelevision.com/sites/drupal7.indiantelevision.co.in/files/styles/340x340/public/images/tv-images/2017/02/20/trai-800x800_0.jpg?itok=Dlcyy2K5
TRAI to review telecoms tariff structure

NEW DELHI: Changing telecom landscape and increasing convergence happening between telecoms and broadcast services have made Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) initiate a fresh consultation process regarding telecoms tariff structures.

Regulators TRAI
http://www.indiantelevision.com/sites/drupal7.indiantelevision.co.in/files/styles/340x340/public/images/tv-images/2017/02/21/inside.jpg?itok=qnA4JwVM
TRAI jurisdiction: IBF plea dismissed, AIDCF impleadment decision on 22 Feb

Cable operators body may become interveners in the Item 7 case heard last Friday between television broadcasters and TRAI over tariff issues vis-a-vis international and Indian copyright laws in the Madras High Court. Indian Broadcasting Foundation's plea to be heard in the case was however...

Regulators High Court
http://www.indiantelevision.com/sites/drupal7.indiantelevision.co.in/files/styles/340x340/public/images/tv-images/2017/02/15/Net-Neutrality.jpg?itok=3XJ_tH9l
Net Neutrality ideas date open till 28 Feb

MUMBAI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) issued a Consultation Paper on Net Neutrality on 4 January, 2017 inviting written comments from the stakeholders by 15 February, 2017 and counter comments by 28 February, 2017.

Regulators TRAI
http://www.indiantelevision.com/sites/drupal7.indiantelevision.co.in/files/styles/340x340/public/images/tv-images/2017/02/15/sanjay%20leela%20bhansali-800x800.jpg?itok=Ux9-Nj9T
MIB petitioned on pre-censorship of period cinematic content

NEW DELHI: If a fringe group from Rajasthan has its way, then period cinematic dramas may face pre-censorship, which sooner or later could also lead to government interventions for TV content that still doesn’t face much content regulations and pre-screening vetting. Rajasthan’s Karni Sena wants...

Regulators I&B Ministry
http://www.indiantelevision.com/sites/drupal7.indiantelevision.co.in/files/styles/340x340/public/images/tv-images/2017/02/14/trai%20%281%29.jpg?itok=ec4rn3sy
Shifting to green tech: TRAI extends ideas date till 14 March

Stakeholders wanting to give suggestions to the Telecom Regulatory Authority's efforts towards the effect of telecom on climate change and green house gas emissions have been asked to send in their views by 14 March 2017.

Regulators TRAI
http://www.indiantelevision.com/sites/drupal7.indiantelevision.co.in/files/styles/340x340/public/images/tv-images/2017/02/11/community-itv.jpg?itok=41-dlX2a
Govt reiterates inability to permit private radio news

NEW DELHI: Reiterating its long-held stand that it was difficult to monitor news bulletins on FM and community radio channels, the Centre has expressed that permitting privately produced news bulletins could endanger "national security and public order".

Regulators I&B Ministry
http://www.indiantelevision.com/sites/drupal7.indiantelevision.co.in/files/styles/340x340/public/images/tv-images/2017/02/10/Rajyavardhan-Rathore1.jpg?itok=yCkwbUYV
No proposal to bring news portals under PRB or PCI Acts

NEW DELHI: The Information and Broadcasting Ministry is not considering making the provisions of Press and Registration of Books (PRB) Act 1867 and Press Council of India Act 1978 applicable to the news portals as these Acts are meant to govern print media sector only.

Regulators I&B Ministry

Latest News

Load More

Sign up for our Newsletter

subscribe for latest stories