2007 (7) TMI 712 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition seeking enforcement of fundamental rights by a company.
2. Interpretation of the definition of telecommunication service.
3. Does the TRAI Act suffer from the vice of excessive delegation?
4. Virus of Rules 9 and 10 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
5. Disconnection of TV channel signals.
6. Restrictions on disconnection.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition Seeking Enforcement of Fundamental Rights by a Company:
The court addressed the threshold challenge to the maintainability of the petitions seeking enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 by companies. The argument presented was that the petitions lacked the necessary pleadings to establish that the petitioners were Indian citizens, as they were foreign companies. The court reiterated that only Indian citizens are entitled to claim Fundamental Rights under Article 19, as established in previous cases such as The State Trading Corporation of India v. The Commercial Tax Officer and Benett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India. The court concluded that the petitions were not maintainable since the petitioners failed to demonstrate their status as Indian citizens.

2. Interpretation of the Definition of Telecommunication Service:
The court examined whether broadcasting activities fall within the purview of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act. The definition of "telecommunication service" under Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act was compared with Section 3(1AA) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The court noted that broadcasting services were intentionally excluded from the definition in the TRAI Act, anticipating separate legislation for broadcasting. The proviso to Section 2(1)(k) allows the Central Government to notify broadcasting services as telecommunication services, indicating a temporary measure until specific broadcasting legislation is enacted.

3. Does the TRAI Act Suffer from the Vice of Excessive Delegation?
The court evaluated whether Section 11(2) of the TRAI Act, which empowers TRAI to determine and prescribe rates for telecommunication services, constituted excessive delegation. The court found that the TRAI Act provides adequate safeguards, including the establishment of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) and the requirement for TRAI's rules and regulations to be laid before Parliament. The court concluded that the TRAI Act does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation, as it delineates the legislative policy and provides mechanisms for oversight.

4. Virus of Rules 9 and 10 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995:
The petitioners challenged the virus of Rules 9 and 10 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, arguing that they exceeded the scope of the Act. The court noted that the CTN Act and Rules contemplate broadcasting activities and that the challenge to the virus was not specifically raised in the writ petitions. The court found that TRAI is competent to prescribe conditions and tariffs under the TRAI Act, and the challenge to the virus of the CTN Rules was not maintainable.

5. Disconnection of TV Channel Signals:
The court addressed the validity of Regulation 4 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004, which requires broadcasters to give three weeks' notice before disconnecting TV channel signals. The court found that the regulation protects the fundamental right of viewers and ensures that disputes can be raised before an independent forum. The court upheld the regulation, stating that it does not suffer from any legal vice and is reasonable in protecting viewers' interests.

6. Restrictions on Disconnection:
The court examined the restrictions on disconnection of TV channel signals, particularly the requirement for notice and the conditions under which disconnection can occur. The court found that the regulations are designed to protect viewers' interests and ensure fair treatment of distributors. The court rejected the petitioners' contention that the regulations were unreasonable, emphasizing the importance of protecting the fundamental rights of viewers.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the challenges raised by the petitioners. The court upheld the validity of the TRAI Act, the definition of telecommunication services, the regulations on disconnection of TV channel signals, and the competence of TRAI to prescribe tariffs and conditions. The petitions were dismissed on the grounds of maintainability and lack of substantive evidence to support the claims.