Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has ruled that only the Supreme Court has the authority to revisit its declared law, while dismissing a writ appeal challenging certain provisions in the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) 2017 and 2024 Tariff Orders and Regulations. The court cited the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (2019) as preventing further challenges to the same regulations under Article 141 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P.M. Manoj observed, “Typically, a statutory regulation can be challenged on two grounds: first, for violating fundamental rights, and second, for being inconsistent with the parent Act. Once the Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to the regulation, any court bound by the declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution cannot revisit a binding judgment of the Supreme Court on different grounds…Only the Supreme Court has the authority to revisit its own declared law; no other court can do so.”

The appellants contested the 2017 and 2024 TRAI regulations, arguing that the provisions under Section 36 of the TRAI Act infringed upon their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They claimed that TRAI exceeded its statutory authority by imposing burdensome restrictions that adversely impacted their businesses. The appellants argued that the TRAI’s regulations imposed unfair restrictions on the broadcasting industry, undermining fair competition and violating fundamental rights. They contended that TRAI’s powers were limited and did not extend to the imposition of such stringent conditions.

Represented by the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, the respondents asserted that TRAI’s regulations had already been upheld by the Supreme Court in Star India, rendering further challenges non-viable. The SG argued that the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) was the appropriate forum for addressing disputes concerning tariff orders, given its expertise in telecom matters.

The Court clarified the distinction between precedent and res judicata, explained that precedent operates as case law within the judicial hierarchy, ensuring that subordinate courts adhere to the principles established by superior courts, thereby creating consistency in legal interpretation. Res judicata, in contrast, enforces procedural rules, preventing re-litigation of the same issue between the same parties based on a prior judgment. The court pointed out that in the Supreme Court's ruling in Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (2019), the binding principle (ratio decidendi) focused on the validity of the regulation itself. Although the cause of action there involved potential copyright issues for broadcasters, the precedent applies broadly to the regulation’s validity, irrespective of the underlying cause of action. “Therefore, this Court cannot entertain the challenge to the regulation and is bound by the Supreme Court judgment in Star India’s case,” stated the court.

Additionally, the court ruled that TDSAT, as a specialized tribunal, is competent to hear challenges against tariff orders and other TRAI decisions, rejecting the argument that TDSAT lacked authority to review fundamental rights-based claims. The court noted, “only constitutional courts have the authority to enforce fundamental rights. However, regarding judicial review based on fundamental rights parameters, any authority with review power can determine whether a decision or order aligns with fundamental rights or applicable law.”

Conclusively, the court ruled that “the challenge to the regulation must fail in light of the binding judgment”. However, it granted the appellants two weeks to approach TDSAT and temporarily deferred any coercive action, enabling the appellants to seek relief from the tribunal.

 

Cause Title: Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation and Others v The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Another [W.A.No.1649/2024]