Delhi HC Dismisses TV Today Network's Plea Against Orders To Run Apology Scroll For Broadcasting Advertisements Promoting Liquor Brand Names

Dismissing the Network's plea, Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that Rule 7(2)(viii) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (and its proviso) permit advertisement of a product that may bear a name also used in connection with prohibited articles. However, such advertisement is subject to conditions, which were contravened in the instant case.

Statedly, the Network broadcasted two advertisements. One pertaining to “100 Pipers Music CDs” and the other to “All Seasons Club Soda”. Respondent No.1 issued letters to the Network stating that the advertisements broadcasted by it promoted brand names associated with alcohol produces.

When the Network was granted an opportunity of hearing before the Competent Authority, it came up that the Network had no means to verify the advertisement as well as the certificate issued by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Reportedly, respondent No.1 then issued an advisory providing a mechanism for verification of CBFC certificates.

Subsequently, the impugned orders were passed, directing the Network to run an apology scroll 4 times a day at the bottom of the screen for 3 consecutive days between 09:00 AM and 09:00 PM. Aggrieved, the Network filed the petition challenging the orders.

The Network's case was that the advertiser had provided a CBFC certificate pertaining to the “100 Pipers” advertisement. With respect to the “All Seasons” broadcast, it was urged that the brand name is commonly used in connection with products other than liquor.

It was contended that the Network's channels had acted in good faith, and were not obliged to compare clips provided by the advertiser with the one certified by CBFC prior to running.

On the other hand, UoI's counsel pled that the “100 Pipers” advertisement carried a logo of the liquor brand, in violation of Rule 7(2)(viii) of the 1994 Rules. With regard to the “All Seasons” advertisement, it was urged that the advertisement showed a liquor bottle and as such could not come within the purview of “surrogate advertisement”. Besides, the clip was not CBFC-certified.

The court held,

“Since the provisions of Rule 7 has not been complied with, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that they had proceeded in good faith on the basis of the CBFC certificate which was submitted by the advertiser cannot be accepted as the Rules do not permit the broadcaster to independently ascertain the veracity of the clip that is provided by the advertiser.”

In connection with “All Seasons” advertisement, the court observed that the same was not certified by CBFC. Further, the issue was stated to have attained finality in view of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench dealing with the same advertisement in New Delhi Television Limited v. Union of India and Anr.

Advocates Hrishikesh Baruah, Anurag Mishra, Kumar Kshitij, Radhika Gupta, and Saumitra appeared for petitioner (TV Today Network)

CGSC Apoorv Kashyap with Advocates Kirti Dadheech, Akhil Hasija, and Ojaswa Pathak appeared for respondent (UoI)

Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 9556/2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1342