Siasat.com/News/Four TV channels taken off air in AP; analysts say it is media
war
Four TV channels taken off
air in AP; analysts say it is media war
T
C R Gowri Shanker | Updated: 27th June 2024 6:10 pm IST
Hyderabad: From bitter politics, the fight has now spread over to media in Andhra Pradesh.
Peeved at the alleged biased media coverage during Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy’s rule and AP Assembly/Lok Sabha elections, the Telugu Desam-led NDA Government has imposed an unannounced ban on select TV channels.
While Telugu Desam denies any wrongdoing, post elections, four Telugu news channels–TV 9, Sakshi TV, NTV, and 10 TV are off the air from cable networks. They account for nearly 60 lakh viewers through cable networks in Andhra Pradesh, a big chunk of them in rural areas. However, these channels can be viewed on satellite networks.
Delhi High Court, over a petition, has ordered uninterrupted transmission of TV 9 channel in the State.
NDA alliance comprising Telugu Desam led by N Chandrababu Naidu, Jana Sena led by actor Pawan Kalyan and BJP led by D Purandeshwari won a thumping majority in the Assembly selections and trounced YSRCP in one of the most bitterly and abusive elections in AP.
Election fallout effects
“Our channel has been removed from the cable network by the ruling party leaders. No reasons have been given for the same. We have approached TRAI, the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and the High Court,” a representative of TV 9 told Siasat.com.
He added, “Media has been facing this onslaught in both the States at times which is not correct.”
Delhi High Court fiat
Following a writ petition filed by Associated Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd of TV 9 Telugu in Delhi High Court against Union of India and others, the court on June 24 ordered: “Accordingly, it is directed that in terms of the submission made on behalf of respondent No. 2, the transmission of the television channel, i.e., TV9 Telugu” shall continue uninterruptedly and unhindered on the same position, as existing prior to 06th June, 2024.
With regard to further grievances of the petitioner, it is noted that the petitioner has already filed applications before TDSAT.”
YSRCP petitions TRAI
After the elections, the YSRCP petitioned TRAI alleging Sakshi TV Telugu and other Telugu channels like TV9, NTV, and 10TV were being blocked on cable by the NDA government, comprising TDP, BJP, and Jana Sena.
YSRCP Rajya Sabha member S Niranjan Reddy lodged a complaint with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
Reddy alleged that the AP Cable TV Operators Association took these four channels off air following pressure from the TDP-led government in the state.
“I am compelled to bring to your (TRAI) esteemed attention the illegal resolution passed by the Andhra Pradesh Cable TV Operators Association under pressure and directions from the newly formed government to permanently block several news channels,” Reddy said.
He charged that TV9, NTV, 10TV and Sakshi TV were blocked ‘without any lawful justification or procedural compliance.’
Biased media
TV channels and newspapers were accused of being biased in their coverage of political parties, but they deny any wrongdoing.
Both former Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy and present Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, son Nara Lokesh, and other leaders took potshots and openly accused a section of the media of being biased towards them and their parties.
It is learned that channels that backed the YSRCP government were taken off by cable operators while retaining TV5, ABN Andhra Jyothi, and ETV.
Barring satellite TV service providers and others, most multi-system operators and AP Fibernet took these channels off the air. According to one operator, the action was taken before Chandrababu Naidu took oath as CM.
Blocked channels enjoy high viewership in both the Telugu States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
TDP denies charge
TDP spokesperson T Jyothsna Tirunagari denied any wrongdoing. “TDP always believes in the freedom of speech and we give a lot of respect to the press and media. And we always believe in journalism as a strong pillar for the society and the state.”
She said the first signature by the newly-elected Andhra Pradesh Speaker C Ayyannapatrudu was to revoke the suspension on ETV, ABN Andhra Jyothi, and TV5, channels which were allegedly barred from entering the House during the YSRCP regime.
“We don’t categorise channels like ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’ as done by former chief minister Jagan Mohan Reddy.
KCR, Jagan disliked some channels
Banning of TV channels or newspapers is nothing new in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
During the tenure of Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, the entry of the representatives like ABN, and TV 9 was blocked. On the other hand, the then AP CM Jagan Mohan Reddy had put a stay on ABN, TV 5, and ETV.
Now under Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, TV 9, NTV, Sakshi, and 10 TV are the targets.
C R Gowri Shanker is a senior journalist based out of Hyderabad. he has served as a Political Editor for Deccan Chronicle. With great insights on the political landscape of the country.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24.06.2024
+ W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & CM APPL. 35506/2024, CM APPL.
35507/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam
Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advs.
M: 9811670983
Email: payalk@kntlawoffices.com
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv.
for UOI.
M: 8588916612
Email: uoidhc@gmail.com
Mr. K.L.N.V.Veeranjaneyulu,
Advocate for Respondent No 2.
21
+ W.P.(C) 8689/2024 & CM APPL. 35508/2024, CM APPL.
35509/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam
Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advs.
M: 9811670983
Email: payalk@kntlawoffices.com
versus
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 2 of 14
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv.
for UOI.
M: 8588916612
Email: uoidhc@gmail.com
Mr. K.L.N.V.Veeranjaneyulu
Advocate for Respondent No 2
52
+ W.P.(C) 8696/2024 & CM APPL. 35532/2024, CM APPL.
35533/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam
Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advs.
M: 9811670983
Email: payalk@kntlawoffices.com
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv.
for UOI.
M: 8588916612
Email: uoidhc@gmail.com
54
+ W.P.(C) 8698/2024 & CM APPL. 35536/2024, CM APPL.
35537/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam
Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advs.
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 3 of 14
M: 9811670983
Email: payalk@kntlawoffices.com
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv.
for UOI.
M: 8588916612
Email: uoidhc@gmail.com
55
+ W.P.(C) 8699/2024 & CM APPL. 35538/2024, CM APPL.
35539/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam
Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advs.
M: 9811670983
Email: payalk@kntlawoffices.com
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv.
for UOI.
M: 8588916612
Email: uoidhc@gmail.com
56
+ W.P.(C) 8700/2024 & CM APPL. 35540/2024, CM APPL.
35541/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 4 of 14
Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advs.
M: 9811670983
Email: payalk@kntlawoffices.com
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv.
for UOI.
M: 8588916612
Email: uoidhc@gmail.com
57
+ W.P.(C) 8701/2024 & CM APPL. 35542/2024, CM APPL.
35543/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam
Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advs.
M: 9811670983
Email: payalk@kntlawoffices.com
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv.
for UOI.
M: 8588916612
Email: uoidhc@gmail.com
58
+ W.P.(C) 8702/2024 & CM APPL. 35544/2024, CM APPL.
35545/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 14
Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam
Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advs.
M: 9811670983
Email: payalk@kntlawoffices.com
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv.
for UOI.
M: 8588916612
Email: uoidhc@gmail.com
59
+ W.P.(C) 8703/2024 & CM APPL. 35546/2024, CM APPL.
35547/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam
Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advs.
M: 9811670983
Email: payalk@kntlawoffices.com
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv.
for UOI.
M: 8588916612
Email: uoidhc@gmail.com
60
+ W.P.(C) 8704/2024 & CM APPL. 35548/2024, CM APPL.
35549/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 6 of 14
Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Shivam
Mehrotra and Mr. Pranav, Advs.
M: 9811670983
Email: payalk@kntlawoffices.com
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Sunil, Adv.
for UOI.
M: 8588916612
Email: uoidhc@gmail.com
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 35506/2024, CM APPL. 35509/2024, CM APPL. 35533/2024,
CM APPL. 35537/2024, CM APPL. 35539/2024, CM APPL. 35541/2024,
CM APPL. 35543/2024, CM APPL. 35545/2024, CM APPL. 35547/2024
& CM APPL. 35549/2024 (For Exemptions)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. Applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8688/2024, CM APPL. 35507/2024, W.P.(C) 8689/2024 , CM
APPL. 35508/2024, W.P.(C) 8696/2024 , CM APPL. 35532/2024,
W.P.(C) 8698/2024, CM APPL. 35536/2024, W.P.(C) 8699/2024 , CM
APPL. 35538/2024, W.P.(C) 8700/2024, CM APPL. 35540/2024, W.P.(C)
8701/2024, CM APPL. 35542/2024, W.P.(C) 8702/2024 , CM APPL.
35544/2024, W.P.(C) 8703/2024, CM APPL. 35546/2024, W.P.(C)
8704/2024 & CM APPL. 35548/2024
3. The present writ petitions have been filed seeking declarations that the
disconnection/switching off of the petitioner‟s channel by the respondent
no.2, and wrongful restoration to create a farce, is in willful breach of
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India‟s (“TRAI‟s”) Interconnection
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 7 of 14
Regulations, 2017, Quality of Service Regulations, 2017 and also in
violation of mutually entered upon Agreement dated 08th May, 2024, as
illegal.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner is a broadcaster of its channels and
respondent no.2 is a Multi System Operator, i.e., a service provider under
TRAI Act, 1997. It is submitted that there is a subsistent existing Agreement
between the petitioner and respondent no. 2, mutually executed between the
parties for broadcast of the channels of the petitioner by respondent no. 2.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
despite the subsistence of the valid Agreement mutually executed between
the parties, the respondent no. 2 has disconnected/switched off the
petitioner‟s channel, i.e., „TV9 Telugu‟, without any cause of action and
without issuance of the mandatory disconnection notice as duly mandated by
Clause 17 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services
Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 and Clause 5.3 of
the duly executed Agreement between the parties.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
disconnection violates Rule 17 of the TRAI‟s Interconnection Regulations
pertaining to the mandatory 21 days‟ prior notice regarding the
disconnection of the channels. Respondent no. 2 has not issued any
disconnection notice at all, making the actions of respondent no. 2 per se as
illegal and bad in law.
7. It is submitted that the action of respondent no. 2 has caused
significant reputational and financial loss to the petitioner and deprived the
subscribers of the petitioner of access to „TV9 Telugu‟ Channel during a
critical period. Thus, the petitioner seeks immediate restoration of the
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 8 of 14
channel on the network owned and operated by respondent no. 2 on the
same status and position, as before the illegal switching off of the channel
prior to 06th June, 2024.
8. It is submitted that since the Telecom Disputes Settlement &
Appellate Tribunal (“TDSAT”) is not functioning in the vacations and there
is no Vacation Bench in the said Tribunal to hear and decide the subject
matter, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present
petitions.
9. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the Channel Placement
Agreement dated 08th May, 2024 and in particular to Clause 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and
1.4, which read as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
1.1 In consideration of TV9, paying the Consideration for market and
promote the Channel under Clause 4, OPERATOR hereby undertakes to
position the "TV9 Telugu" for the head-end distribution area as specified
in Schedule-C herein and in accordance with the terms of this agreement.
1.2 OPERATOR shall position the "TV9 Telugu" as required by TV9 at a
frequency as mentioned in Schedule-B (hereinafter referred to as the
"Committed Frequency"), and in accordance with the terms of this
agreement.
1.3 OPERATOR hereby undertakes not to alter or downgrade the above
Channel position, except as provided under this Agreement. If at any time
any alteration in the Committed Frequency is deemed unavoidable due to
any order or direction of any competent authority or a court of law or
tribunal or due to mandate of any law, notification or regulation,
OPERATOR shall place the "TV9 Telugu" on any other mutually
acceptable band / frequency which is not less, favourable than the
Committed Frequency.
1.4 OPERATOR shall place the "TV9 Telugu" as broadcast by TV9, the
Channel Provider without any editing, delays, interruptions, additions,
cuts, deletions, super impositions, or modifications of any nature
whatsoever. Provided that in the event the "TV9 Telugu" are suspended
or withdrawn for whatever reasons other than Force Majeure events
described in cause 9 hereunder, for a continuous period of more than 24
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 9 of 14
hours, then OPERATOR may at its option, place any other signals of its
choice on the Committed Frequency for a temporary period, but
OPERATOR shall immediately within 24 hours of "TV9 Telugu" being
restored, restore the signals of the "TV9 Telugu" on the Committed
Frequency and resume performance of its obligations hereunder as if,
there was no interruption.
xxx xxx xxx”
10. By referring to the aforesaid Clauses, it is submitted that by way of
the aforesaid Agreement, the respondent no. 2 in his capacity as an operator,
has undertaken not to alter or downgrade the channel position, except as
provided under the Agreement.
11. Learned Senior Counsel relying upon Clause 5 submits that, the
Agreement has commenced from 01st April, 2024 and shall expire after 12
months, i.e., on 31st March, 2025. He further submits that Clause 5
categorically records that the Agreement shall be terminated only by giving
a written notice of 21 days, which has not been done in the present case.
Clause 5 of the Channel Placement Agreement dated 08th May, 2024, reads
as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
5. TERMS AND TERMINATION
5.1 This Agreement shall commence from 01st April, 2024 and shall
expire after 12 (Twelve) months i.e. on 31st March, 2025. This Agreement
may be renewed on mutually agreed terms.
5.2 This agreement shall be terminated by TV9 on the occurrence of any
of the following events by giving a written notice of 21 (Twenty One)
days:
(a) Failure on the part of OPERATOR to adhere to any of its obligations
undertaken under the agreement.
(b) In case where there are any variations resulting in non-availability of
the "Tv9 Telugu" to the subscriber on the Specified Frequency as agreed
upon in this agreement.
(c) By TV9, in the event force majeure conditions prevail a continuous
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 10 of 14
period exceeding 60 (sixty) days.
(d) Without assigning any reason
5.3 Both the Parties may terminate this agreement by giving 21 (twenty
one) days notice in writing to the other side.
xxx xxx xxx”
12. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to Schedule B showing
the placement position of „TV9 Telugu‟. With respect to W.P.(C) No.
8688/2024, the same is LCN 51.
13. Learned Senior Counsel has also handed over the channel placement
in all the present cases, which are as under:
(AP
(AP
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 11 of 14
14. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the Telecommunication
(Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems)
Regulations, 2017, in particular to Regulation 17, which reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
17. Disconnection of signals of television channels - No service provider
shall disconnect the signals of television channels without giving at least
three weeks’ notice in writing to other service provider, clearly
specifying the reasons for the proposed disconnection:
Provided that the period of three weeks’ notice shall start from the
date of receiving the notice by the other service provider:
Provided further that the distributor of television channels shall,
fifteen days prior to the date of disconnection, inform the subscriber,
through scrolls on the channels proposed to be disconnected, the date
of disconnection of signals of such television channels:
Provided also that no service provider shall display notice for
disconnection of signals of television channels in form of static images
overlaid on the television screen, obstructing normal viewing of the
subscribers.
xxx xxx xxx”
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 12 of 14
15. By referring to the aforesaid Regulation, it is submitted that it has
categorically been stipulated, that no service provider shall disconnect the
signals of the television channels without giving at least three weeks‟ notice,
in writing.
16. Learned Senior Counsel also refers to Clause 18 (4) of the said
Regulations, which reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
18. ......
(4) The channel number once assigned to a particular television channel
shall not be altered by the distributor for a period of at least one year
from the date of such assignment:
Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply in case the channel
becomes unavailable on the distribution network:
Provided further that if a broadcaster changes the genre of a channel
then the channel number assigned to that particular television channel
shall be changed to place such channel together with the channels of new
genre in the electronic program guide.
xxx xxx xxx”
17. By referring to the aforesaid Regulation 18 (4), it is submitted that
once a channel number has been assigned to a particular television channel,
it shall not be altered by the distributor for a period of at least one year.
18. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite a subsisting Agreement,
the transmission of the petitioner‟s channel has been disrupted. Attention of
this Court has been drawn to Annexure P-4 (colly), which are the various
complaints received from the consumers.
19. Learned Senior Counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the
letter dated 09th June, 2024 written on behalf of the petitioner to the
respondents seeking restoration of the transmission of their television
channel. However, it is submitted that no action has been taken.
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters Page 13 of 14
20. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that 62 lacs, out of 65 lacs of
set top boxes, have been switched off for the channels of the petitioner. This
is despite the fact that „TV9 Telugu‟ channel is the top News Channel in
Andhra Pradesh. Thus, it is submitted that respondent no.2 has acted
contrary to the Regulations of the TRAI.
21. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-Union of
India submits that the present petition would not be maintainable before this
Court, as TDSAT is the authority where the petitioner ought to have filed
the petitions. He further submits that respondent no.1 has been made a party,
solely for the purpose of bringing the present petitions within the jurisdiction
of this Court. It is further submitted that the present petition involves private
commercial dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.1, wherein,
one party is in Andhra Pradesh and other is in Telangana.
22. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the
petitioner ought to have approached the TDSAT. In the absence of the
TDSAT, it is the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Courts, which have
the jurisdiction to hear the present matters.
23. He further draws the attention of this Court to Schedule C of the
Agreement between the parties to submit that the Headend Locations, with
respect to the channels of the petitioner, are in Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana. Thus, he submits that the transmission of the channels, i.e., „TV9
Telugu‟ is undisruptive and is currently in place.
24. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties,
this Court at the outset records the submission made by learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 2 that the transmission of the channel of the
petitioner, i.e., „TV9 Telugu‟ is uninterrupted and unhindered, and is being
W.P.(C) 8688/2024 & Other Connected Matters
No comments:
Post a Comment