9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1762 - HC - Indian LawsBroadcasting services - Whether the impugned Regulations and the Tariff Order can exist and operate through the powers conferred to and under the TRAI Act, 1997? Whether the impugned Regulations and the Tariff Order would impinge upon the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957? Held that - The jurisdiction of the enactments have already been dealt with in extenso. Suffice it is to state that TRAI Act involves regulation of airwaves and frequencies being public properties, touches upon various stakeholders with primacy to the public interest. To put it differently, the general public is the king, being the subscriber whose interest should be guarded and protected under the Act as a prime factor. TRAI is thus, obligated to take adequate measures as mandated by the statute. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 go with the TRAI Act strengthening the hands of the authority. TRAI Act came into being on the need enough to have a better enactment than the Telegraph Act, 1885, supported and safeguarded by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. This Act deals with cable television network. That is the reason why, the authority is the same along with the definition of digital addressable system and introduction transmission of programmes through digital addressable system etc. Therefore, this enactment deals with the last part of the broadcast. Section 2(k) of the TRAI Act merely explains a telecommunication service. Therefore, even assuming it can be divided into three parts as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the conclusion does not change. The TRAI Act does not deal with a mere means of transmission alone. Perhaps the petitioners do understand it rather well. That is the reason why they laid the challenge before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court to the very provision. The principle governing the noscitur a sociis cannot be applied as the petitioner suggested. There is no ambiguity on the definition provision. The permission obtained from the Central Government would bring a broadcaster within the fold of a service provider. The petitioners themselves claimed and raised disputes as service providers. A finding was also rendered by the Court which reached finality. Thus, as a natural sequitor, the Regulations and Tariff Order would ipso facto apply to the petitioners case. While there is no BRR involved under the TRAI Act, no right has been given to a television channel under Section 37 of the Copyright Act. Merely because, the television channel becomes a broadcaster, no independent right can be placed as against the broadcasting which may involve any work or a programme coming under the Act s purview. In this connection, the definition of TV Channel as adumbrated in the impugned regulations will have to be seen. While the copyright does not make any reference to a TV Channel, it has been referred accordingly as such, only after obtaining permission for downlinking under the impugned regulations. Therefore, the TV channel has been understood in a very restrictive manner under the impugned regulations. Needless to state that the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, also deals with the television channel as against the Copyright Act. A party, who approbates and reprobates should not be shown any indulgence by the Court. Certainly, the law governing issue estoppel would also come into play. It also applies to the declaration made by the Court on the basis of the stand taken by the petitioners that it is a service provider under the TRAI Act. Both the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and the TRAI Act are coming under entry 31 of List I of VII schedule. Therefore, if once competency is attributable to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, it is axiomatic that the same has to be extended to the TRAI Act as well. On the same analogy, a power conferred under the aforesaid Act cannot be imported into the Copyright Act through the amendments made. Merely because the petitioners are affected, the impugned regulation and the amendment would not partake the character of content. While there is no material to support the conclusion on content, as contended by the petitioners, the judgments inter se governing the field have not been taken note of. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the TRAI Act, 1997 over content regulation. 2. Relationship between the TRAI Act, 1997 and the Copyright Act, 1957. 3. Validity of the impugned Regulations and Tariff Order under the TRAI Act, 1997. 4. Impact of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 on the TRAI Act, 1997. 5. Scope and interpretation of the term "broadcast" under the Copyright Act, 1957. 6. Applicability of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the TRAI Act, 1997 over content regulation: The judgment concluded that the TRAI Act, 1997, encompasses both carriage and content regulation to some extent, as long as it pertains to the quality of service and public interest. The TRAI Act is a sector-specific legislation designed to regulate telecommunication services, including broadcasting, to ensure orderly growth and protect consumer interests. The court emphasized that the TRAI Act's regulatory scope includes setting tariffs and regulating the packaging of channels, which indirectly affects content availability to consumers. 2. Relationship between the TRAI Act, 1997 and the Copyright Act, 1957: The court held that the TRAI Act and the Copyright Act operate in distinct fields. The Copyright Act primarily deals with protecting the rights of copyright holders and managing the licensing and royalties associated with those rights. In contrast, the TRAI Act focuses on regulating the telecommunication and broadcasting sectors to ensure fair competition and consumer protection. The court clarified that the TRAI Act does not encroach upon the rights protected under the Copyright Act but regulates the manner in which broadcast content is made available to the public. 3. Validity of the impugned Regulations and Tariff Order under the TRAI Act, 1997: The court upheld the validity of the impugned Regulations and Tariff Order, stating that they fall within the regulatory powers conferred upon TRAI by the TRAI Act. The court noted that the TRAI Act grants TRAI the authority to regulate tariffs, terms of service, and quality standards to protect consumer interests. The impugned regulations, which include provisions on channel packaging and tariffs, were deemed necessary to prevent monopolistic practices and ensure consumer choice. 4. Impact of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 on the TRAI Act, 1997: The court determined that the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, which introduced changes to strengthen the rights of authors and copyright holders, does not limit the regulatory powers of TRAI under the TRAI Act. The amendment aimed to protect the rights of creators and ensure fair compensation for their works but did not intend to restrict TRAI's role in regulating the broadcasting sector. The court emphasized that both Acts serve different purposes and can coexist without conflict. 5. Scope and interpretation of the term "broadcast" under the Copyright Act, 1957: The court interpreted the term "broadcast" under the Copyright Act to mean the communication of content to the public, either directly or indirectly. The court clarified that a broadcast occurs when content is made available to the public, and the rights associated with a broadcast, including the Broadcast Reproduction Right (BRR), come into play only after the initial broadcast. The court rejected the argument that the mere uplinking or downlinking of content constitutes a broadcast under the Copyright Act. 6. Applicability of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995: The court held that the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, complements the TRAI Act by regulating the transmission of cable television networks. The Act mandates the use of digital addressable systems and ensures that broadcasters and distributors comply with TRAI's regulations. The court noted that the Cable Television Networks Act supports TRAI's regulatory framework and does not conflict with the TRAI Act's provisions. Conclusion: The court concluded that the TRAI Act, 1997, has sufficient regulatory authority over both carriage and content to the extent necessary to protect consumer interests and ensure fair competition. The impugned Regulations and Tariff Order were upheld as valid exercises of TRAI's regulatory powers. The Copyright Act, 1957, and the TRAI Act, 1997, operate in distinct fields and can coexist without conflict. The amendments to the Copyright Act in 2012 do not limit TRAI's regulatory authority. The interpretation of "broadcast" under the Copyright Act is limited to the communication of content to the public, and the Cable Television Networks Act supports TRAI's regulatory framework.
|
