NTO 2.0 case: No interim relief for broadcasters, SC issues notice to TRAI

The Supreme Court today issued notice to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on the petitions filed by the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF) against the Bombay High Court verdict which upheld the New Tariff Order (NTO) 2.0.

The TRAI will have to file its reply by 7th September, when the matter has been posted for hearing. The bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Aniruddha Bose said that the plea for interim stay on NTO 2.0 will be considered on 7th September.

The broadcasters have failed to get an interim relief for the second time, even as the time to file the Reference Interconnect Offers (RIO) has elapsed on 12th August. On 6th August, the SC bench didn't hear the matter due to voluminous petitions filed by nine different parties. Without hearing the petitions, the SC told the petitioners to file a shorter convenience compilation.

During the hearing, the TRAI said that the decision to cap channel MRP and bouquet pricing has been taken in public interest. The TRAI's view was supported by the Union of India.

The broadcasters have urged the Supreme Court to set aside the Bombay High Court's recent order upholding the NTO 2.0 and the TRAI's power to regulate broadcast tariff in the larger public interest.

The IBDF along with member broadcasters has challenged the validity of NTO 2.0 contending that the capping of channel pricing will restrict the fundamental right of free speech and expression of the broadcasters. The broadcasters also fear that the HC order will give powers to the TRAI to micro-manage the broadcasting sector.

The biggest grouse that the broadcasters have against the Bombay HC order is that it has incorrectly read into Article 19(2) by applying an additional requirement of public interest when it comes to interpreting a broadcaster’s right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

The broadcasters have also argued that the Bombay HC order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. They have also urged that the operationalisation of NTO 2.0 would require the broadcasters and distribution platforms to execute over 100,000 agreements, and it would be virtually impossible to roll back the effect of the said change, in the event its appeal succeeds.

The petitioners also said that the TRAI will not suffer any prejudice or hardship if the court grants an interim stay. Therefore, the IBDF argued that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the broadcasters, since they stand to be subjected to greater inconvenience if there is no interim relief.