Read Time: 05 minutes

The Supreme Court today refused to stay the Bombay High Court verdict upholding the New Tariff Orders and the powers of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to fix tariff for broadcasting.

The full bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose however issued notice on the batch of pleas against the high Court judgement.

Arguing that the price of channels cannot be regulated under any provision of law as this right was protected under Article 19(1)(g),  Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for one of the petitioners pressed for an interim order.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Government opposed stay on the High Court judgement on the pretext that the New Tariff order was in the interest of consumers.

SG Mehta argued that the balance of convenience was in the favour of viewers who outnumbered the broadcasters.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appearing for TRAI concurred with SG Mehta and submitted that the High Court judgement was a well reasoned judgement.

Having heard the parties, the Court refused to grant an interim stay and only notice was issued.

On June 30, the Bombay High Court had upheld the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI’s) amendments to the New Tariff Order that outlines how TV channels should be priced.

According to the new tariff order, consumers can choose the TV channels they want to watch and pay only for them at maximum retail prices (MRPs) set by broadcasters, instead of the pre-set bouquets offered earlier. The new tariff order was expected to make channels cheaper for the consumer and offer more choice. However, on ground, the opposite happened as the cost of like-to-like channel options went up.

To bring down the cost of entertainment for the end consumer, the TRAI had announced amendments to the NTO on January 1, 2020. As part of the new amendments, TRAI reduced the cap on the MRP of individual channels, which can form part of any bouquet to Rs 12 from Rs 19 per month, which the IBF said had not been backed by any logical rationale or consumer insight. The regulator also sought to impose twin conditions for bouquet formation, effectively introducing a cap on bouquet pricing, which broadcasters felt would limit the number of channels in the bouquet and reduce the value delivered to consumers.

[Case Title: Batch of Petitions]