Delhi High Court: The writ petitions were filed by the petitioner, who broadcasts the TV9 Telugu channel, against respondent 2, a Multi System Operator (MSO) and service provider under the alleging that respondent 2 disconnected its channel without issuing the required disconnection notice, violating both the Interconnection and Quality of Service Regulations of 2017 and a mutually agreed-upon contract dated 08-05-24. Mini Pushkarna, J., 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 06-06-2024.
Despite having a valid and active Agreement, the petitioner’s TV9 Telugu channel was disconnected by respondent no. 2 without any prior notice. The Agreement dated 08-05-24 laid out the specifics for the channel’s broadcast, including placement, frequency, and notice period for termination. According to Clause 17 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017, and Clause 5.3 of the Agreement, a 21-day prior notice is mandatory before disconnection, which respondent 2 failed to provide. This sudden disconnection caused significant reputational and financial damage to the petitioner and deprived subscribers of access to the channel during a crucial period. The petitioner approached the High Court as the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) was not functioning during vacations, and there was no Vacation Bench available.
Clause 1.1 to 1.4 of the Agreement detail the placement and frequency commitments for TV9 Telugu, specifying that any alteration or downgrade is prohibited except under certain conditions. Clause 5, addressing terms and termination, states that the Agreement is valid from 01-04-24 to 31-03-25 and can be terminated only with a 21-day written notice, which was not given in this case. Regulation 17 of the Interconnection Regulations mandates a minimum of three weeks’ notice before disconnection, which was clearly violated by respondent no. 2. Additionally, Regulation 18(4) prohibits altering the assigned channel number for at least one year, a condition that respondent no. 2 also failed to respect.
Numerous consumer complaints were filed regarding the disconnection, and a letter dated 09-06-24 was sent by the petitioner to respondent 2 seeking restoration, but this was ignored. Respondent no. 2, however, claimed that the transmission of TV9 Telugu was undisrupted and ongoing, conflicting with the petitioner’s assertions.
The Court noted that the petitions were filed before TDSAT, and the High Court was approached due to the absence of a Vacation Bench in TDSAT. The Court recorded the submission by respondent 2 that the transmission of TV9 Telugu would continue uninterruptedly. Given the assurances from respondent 2 and the pending petitions before TDSAT, the Court directed that the transmission of TV9 Telugu should continue the same status and position as before 06-06-24, until further orders from TDSAT.
Thus, the Court disposed of the writ petitions with instructions for the uninterrupted transmission of TV9 Telugu, adhering to the existing Agreement and regulatory framework until the matter is fully resolved by TDSAT.
[Associated Broadcasting Company Private Limited v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 8688/2024, decided on 24-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv. for UOI
The post appeared first on .