NEW DELHI: Following the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's request that its tariff regulations which were slated to come into effect on 2 April were being deferred to 2 May 2017, Star India and Vijay TV decided not to press for their pleas in view of the ongoing case in Madras hIgh Court.
The regulator In a letter submitted to the court its counsel Richard Wilson and signed by by TRAI Secretary Sudhir Gupta, stated that this was being done in view of certain ambiguities raised by some stakehlolders.
The Court was told that a formal notice about this would be released in due course.
The broadcasters had filed the application on the plea of the deadline set by TRAI.
Meanwhile, the Court fixed the matter for further hearing on 3 April even as TRAI counsel commenced his arguments following the conclusion of the arguments by the broadcasters over two days commencing last Friday.
After TRAI counsel concludes his arguments next week, the Court will hear counsel of All India Digital Cable Federation which been impleaded in the matter.
Earlier on 3 March, the regulator had issued the three regulations after getting a directive from the Supreme Court on its appeal against a stay granted by the Madras High Court. While granting the appeal, the apex Court also asked the High Court to conclude hearing in sixty days.
The petition had been filed by Star India and Vijay TV under the Copyright Act on the ground that TRAI could not give any directives that will affect the content since that did not fall in its purview.
Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.
The orders can be seen at:
Follwing these regulations, the broadcasters had filed an amended petition and TRAI had also replied to the same last week.
Concluding his arguments for the broadcasters, senior counsel P Chidambaram argued that TRAI’s action of fixing tariff for TV content was in violation of the Copyright Act. He also submitted that TRAI did not have the jurisdiction to fix tariff since the exploitation of IPR was part of the Copyright Act.