Delhi High Court Upholds Migration Of TV9 Network’s Television Channels From A ‘Bouquet’ To An ‘A-La-Carte’ Offering

The Court dismissed the Petitions concerning orders passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) regarding the migration of television channels of Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd., which owns and operates ‘TV9’ channels. The dispute involves a Multi System Operator (MSO/Respondent) and the Petitioner, a broadcaster/channel provider. The litigation before the TDSAT was related to the disconnection/switching off of the Petitioner's channels, specifically 'TV9 Telugu,' in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta held, “The impugned order gives multiple reasons for modifying the preexisting interim order/s passed in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order takes note of the extant Regulatory mechanism and on the basis of Regulation 3(4) read with Regulation 10 (11) of the Interconnection Regulations, 2017, reaches the conclusion that the same clearly proscribes a Broadcaster from proposing, stipulating or demanding, directly or indirectly, packaging of its channel in any particular bouquet offered by the Distributor of television channels to subscribers. The language of the aforesaid regulations is quite unambiguous in this regard. Thus, there is, prima facie, merit in the reasoning given in the impugned order.”

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocates Kunal Tandon and Ramji Srinivasan represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent discontinued/switched off the channels without issuing the mandatory disconnection notice as required under the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable systems) Regulations, 2017 (2017 Regulations).

The TDSAT had earlier directed "uninterrupted and unhindered transmission" of the Petitioner’s channels. However, the Respondent issued a notice for migration of the Petitioner’s channel from a "bouquet" to an "a-la-carte" offering, which the Petitioner contested.

The TDSAT's interim orders interdicted the Respondent from implementing the migration notice. Subsequently, these interim orders were modified by the TDSAT, leading to the present Petitions challenging the modification orders

Court’s Observations

The High Court held that “having perused the impugned order, and considering the submissions by the respective counsel, this Court finds that there is no justification to interfere with the impugned order/s in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

“Even assuming the petitioner is right in contending that it is possible to enter into an agreement in derogation of Regulation 3(4) of the Interconnection Regulations, 2017, a bare perusal of the ‘Channel Placement Agreement/s’ between the parties reveals that the same does not even deal with or contain any provision as regards making the channel/s of the petitioner a part of any bouquet/s to be offered by the respondent no.3 to its subscribers,” the Bench remarked.

The Bench clarified that the Respondent including the channel of the Petitioner as part of its bouquets offerings to its subscribers in the past, does not, by itself, create any legal right in favour of the Petitioner for continuation of the same arrangement.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This is especially considering that the impugned orders are interlocutory in nature and necessarily subject to the final outcome of the petitions filed by the petitioner.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2405)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh; Advocates Praveen Kumar Singh, C. Sanal Nambiar, Chetna Singh, Payal Kakra, Ehraz Zafar, Akash Tyagi, Pranav, Mayank Rai, V.S. Jadaun, Tanya Gupta, Shivam Mehrotra, Rangasaran Mohan, Amarpal Singh Dua and Suraj

Respondents: Senior Advocates Kunal Tandon and Ramji Srinivasan; CGSC Mukul Singh, Rohan Jaitley and Rakesh Kumar; GP Gokul Sharma; Advocates Piyush Beriwal, Sandip Munain, Jyotsna Vyas, Kumar Shashank Shekhar, Sharath Sampathi, Manikya Khanna, Aditya Krishna, Randeep Dahiya, Natasha Singh, Ira Singh, Sharath Sampath, Aditya Krishna, Randeep Dahiya, Arjun Bhatia, Shefali Munde, Ankur Sood, Sunil, Dev Pratap Shani, Varun Pratap Singh and Yogya Bhatia

Click here to read/download the Judgment