As the Delhi High Court prepares to hear arguments soon on the contentious 12-minute advertising cap on television channels, the broadcast industry and legal experts are bracing for what is expected to be a landmark ruling.
Scheduled for January 27, 2026, the case has sparked widespread speculation over the future of advertising regulations, broadcaster revenue models, and the balance between consumer interests and commercial freedom. Industry insiders say the dispute is more than just a numbers game, it is about the regulatory landscape of television itself.
For broadcasters, the stakes are high. Advertising revenue continues to form the backbone of their business model, particularly for Hindi general entertainment channels and regional networks. Analysts point out that restricting ad time could force channels to either increase rates for the limited slots or explore alternate revenue sources.
IBDF urges TRAI to defer action. Read our earlier report
The 12-minute cap, introduced by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), limits the number of minutes of advertising that channels can air per hour. While TRAI maintains that the cap protects viewers from excessive commercial breaks and ensures a better viewing experience, broadcasters argue that the restriction threatens their primary revenue stream, especially as traditional advertising has faced pressure from digital and OTT platforms.
‘Court likely to enforce cap’
A broadcaster, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that regulatory forbearance rather than a rigid, blanket restriction would be a more pragmatic approach given the current market realities.
“The court will likely enforce the cap, and the broadcasters will have to either jack up the rates to ensure their revenues do not go down but then if the rates go too high then advertisers will shift more to digital as the linear is losing visibility, so it is a catch-22 situation.
Ad cap battle heats up. Read e4m report
“That is why companies like Zee, Star had so many channels as they could multiply their inventory, but now this approach is not going to work as advertisers are moving to digital more where the costs are lesser,” said Rajiv Khattar, broadcast expert.
Another industry expert said, “If the cap is enforced strictly, channels will have to rethink programming, bundling and even subscription models. It’s not just about minutes, it’s about survival in a competitive landscape.”
‘Legally Speaking’
Legal observers note that courts in India have traditionally given regulators significant latitude in sectors affecting public interest, but broadcasters have strong arguments rooted in the constitutional protection of trade and business.
“It is a classic case of balancing consumer welfare against commercial freedom,” said a legal analyst, who did not wish to be named.
According to Advocate Rohit Jain, Managing Partner, Singhania & Co, the Court may strive to deliver a more balanced judgment.
“Instead of a strict ‘per clock hour’ limit, the court may allow broadcasters to average their 12 minutes across the day. This will let them run more ads during high-demand Prime Time slots and fewer during off-peak hours. The court may also distinguish between Pay Channels and FTA Channels, allowing the latter more breathing room. In Tata Press Ltd. vs. MTNL, the Supreme Court held that "Commercial Speech" (advertising) is protected under Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech). Therefore, it is unlikely that the Court will deliver a strict blanket ban,” Jain said.
TRAI’s Take
TRAI, on the other hand, has always emphasised the consumer-centric rationale. Excessive advertising has long been a point of complaint among viewers, with many surveys indicating that audiences are increasingly fatigued by long ad breaks.
Read more: 250 show-cause notices rekindle battle
From the regulator’s perspective, the cap is a measure to improve viewer experience and standardize industry practice.
Some industry watchers suggest that a compromise ruling is a possibility. The court could allow slight flexibility for channels or offer exemptions for specific types of programming, such as news or niche content. This approach would enable TRAI to uphold its consumer protection mandate while giving broadcasters some breathing room to maintain ad revenue.
Broadcasters are already strategising for various scenarios. If the cap is upheld, channels may reduce the number of ad breaks per hour but increase the cost per slot, potentially making advertising less accessible for smaller brands. Conversely, a relaxation or overturning of the cap could embolden channels to revert to longer ad blocks, which could have implications for viewer satisfaction and retention.
Legal experts highlight that the case is also likely to set a precedent for future regulatory interventions. “The judgment will have ramifications beyond this single rule,” says the first anonymous legal expert. “It could influence how TRAI and other regulators frame guidelines on content, advertising, and subscription models in the years to come.”
For TRAI, the hearing is an opportunity to reaffirm its role as a consumer watchdog.
Industry bodies have pointed out that revenue pressures from digital and OTT competitors make rigid ad caps unsustainable. “The industry has evolved, and the regulatory framework must evolve too,” said a senior executive. “Television is competing for eyeballs and ad revenue, and a blanket limit can create unintended consequences.”
The upcoming hearing is being closely watched by all stakeholders, including advertisers, content producers, and investors. For advertisers, the ruling could affect pricing, ad placement strategies, and the number of brands that can be accommodated in a prime-time hour. For content producers, it may influence how shows are structured to accommodate fewer ad breaks. And for investors, the decision could signal broader trends in the television sector’s regulatory environment.
The Indian Broadcasting & Digital Foundation (IBDF), the unified representative body for broadcasters in India, had urged the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to defer any action on the 12-minute-per-hour television advertising cap, arguing that the matter is sub judice, even as the regulator has reiterated that broadcasters must continue to comply with the rule until a court order otherwise.
News broadcasters have echoed IBDF’s position in their individual responses to the regulator.
TRAI restated its view during a meeting with broadcasting companies, held after 250 show-cause notices were issued in November for alleged breaches of the advertising duration norms. The regulator maintained that the lack of a final judicial outcome does not dilute the applicability of the regulation.
A long-dormant regulation returned to haunt India’s television industry with TRAI issuing over 250 show-cause notices seeking implementation of the 12-minute advertising cap, frozen for more than a decade.
If enforced, the cap would strike at the heart of linear TV economics at a moment when broadcasters are battling falling ad revenues, volatile demand, rising content costs and an unprecedented shift of audiences to digital and free-to-air platforms.
Senior industry leaders earlier told exchange4media that implementation now would be destabilising for a business already running on thin margins.
Broadcasters had argued that the data being interpreted as a uniform violation of the 10+2 advertising cap is misleading. Their point is that a dip in overall advertising demand has made them sell commercial time wherever inventory is available, which means some hours carry more ads while others carry significantly less. In other words, exceeding the 12-minute cap does not automatically mean every hour or every programme is overloaded with advertising.
Speculation ahead of January 27 ranges from a strict enforcement of the cap to a nuanced compromise. Industry sources suggest that the court may adopt a cautious approach, ensuring that consumer interests are safeguarded without completely undermining broadcaster revenues.
Ultimately, the Delhi High Court hearing is poised to be more than a debate on ad minutes. It is a test of regulatory authority, commercial viability and the balance between protecting viewers and supporting the broadcast ecosystem.
With the hearing just days away, speculation remains high. Whether the court sides with TRAI, gives broadcasters relief, or strikes a middle path, the 12-minute ad cap case promises to be a defining moment in India’s media regulatory landscape.