Supreme Court Rejects Broadcasters' Plea To Stay Bombay HC Order Upholding Most Provisions Of TRAI Tariff Order

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stay the Bombay High Court's judgment which upheld most provisions of the Tariff Orders issued by the Telecom Regulatory and Authority of India (TRAI) in 2017 and 2020 for TV channels.

A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose issued notice on the special leave petitions filed by a group of broadcasters associations against the High Court judgment.

Though the bench agreed to issue notice, it said that the question of interim relief cannot be considered at this stage.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing in one of the petitions, persuaded the bench for an interim order. He pointed out that the High Court's interim relief to the broadcasters was available throughout the hearing.

"The price of channels cant be regulated under any provision of law. This right is protected under Article 19(1)(g)", Rohatgi submitted. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Anuradha Bhasin case (Kashmir 4G ban case) to say that the restrictions must be proportionate.

He argued that the "interests of the consumers" is not a ground available under Article 19(2) to restrict the fundamental rights of the the broadcasters.

"HC says Public interest will be added to 19(2) and this can't be done", Rohatgi argued. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the Producers Guild, submitted that he was supporting Rohatgi's contentions.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Government, opposing the interim relief, submitted that the Tariff Order was in the interests of millions of consumers.

"There are millions of TV viewers like us on one side and some 40 of them on the other said", the SG said stressing that the balance of convenience was against the channels.

At this juncture, the CJI asked the SG in lighter vein "Mr.Mehta, you get time to watch TV also".

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the TRAI, submitted that the petitioners cannot plead for interim relief after the High Court has passed a well-considered judgment to uphold the regulations.

The bench said that it will only issue notice and was refusing interim relief.