The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the petitions filed by Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. (TV9 Network) challenging the interim orders by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) that allowed distribution platform operators to remove TV9 channels from their bouquet offerings and convert them to an a-la-carte offering.
Justice Sachin Datta said that the orders under challenge are only interlocutory in nature and are not final and hence, merit no interference by the High Court.
“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 In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present petitions; the same are, consequently, dismissed,” the High Court ordered.
A "bouquet" or "bouquet of channels" refers to an assortment of distinct channels offered together as a group or bundle for a combined price. This packaging typically allows viewers to access multiple channels at a discounted rate compared to purchasing them individually.
In contrast, "a-la-carte" offerings allow subscribers to select and pay for individual channels on a standalone basis. Under this model, viewers only pay for specific channels they want to watch rather than an entire package that might include unwanted channels.
The distinction is crucial for broadcasters like TV9, as inclusion in popular bouquets typically ensures wider viewership compared to being offered solely on an a-la-carte basis
The dispute centered around whether multi-system operators (MSOs) could remove TV9's channels from bouquet packages and offer them only on an a-la-carte basis to subscribers.
After the June 2024 elections in Andhra Pradesh, several news channels including TV9 Telugu, NTV, 10TV, and Sakshi TV were taken off from bouquet packages and offered on a-la-carte basis.
The YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) alleged that the action was orchestrated by the newly elected Telugu Desam Party (TDP)-led alliance government, in coordination with cable operators, to suppress media critical of the ruling parties. TV9, one of the affected channels, initially approached the TDSAT for relief.
However, with the tribunal on summer break, the broadcaster also moved the Delhi High Court, which directed immediate and uninterrupted restoration of the channels' transmission.
Subsequently, the TDSAT, in its orders dated July 5, 2024 and September 13, 2024 upheld this directive after finding that no notices were issued to channels before their migration from bouquet to a-la-carte.
The channels then resumed but the MSOs later issued migration notices in November 2024, seeking to move TV9’s channels from bouquets to a-la-carte subscriptions. TV9 contested this move before the TDSAT, arguing that a Channel Placement Agreement with the MSOs guaranteed its channels’ inclusion in all bouquets.
In its orders passed on February 6 and February 25 this year, the TDSAT modified its earlier stance and ruled as follows:
Regulation 3(4) of the Interconnection Regulations, 2017 prohibits broadcasters from demanding that their channels be included in specific bouquets.
MSOs have the right to alter bouquets under Regulation 11 of the Quality of Service (QoS) Regulations, 2017, provided they give 15 days’ notice to subscribers.
The Channel Placement Agreement between TV9 and the MSOs only covered LCN allocation and did not explicitly mandate bouquet inclusion.
The tribunal also noted that TV9’s reliance on past practices—where its channels were included in bouquets—did not create a legally enforceable right for continued inclusion.
This prompted the TV9 to file a fresh petition before the High Court.
In his ruling, Justice Datta cited multiple regulatory provisions supporting TDSAT's decision, particularly Regulation 3(4) of the Interconnection Regulations of 2017, which prohibits broadcasters from demanding inclusion in particular bouquets offered by distributors.
"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," Justice Datta noted.
Even if the petitioner's contention—that it is possible to enter into agreements deviating from Regulation 3(4)—were assumed to be correct, the Court found that the Channel Placement Agreements did not contain any clause requiring the distributor to include the petitioner’s channels in any bouquet.
"The only purport of the ‘Channel Placement Agreement/s’ executed between the parties was to assign a particular favourable/preferred LCN [Logical Channel Number] to the petitioner within its genre, for which the consideration was paid," the Court observed.
Responding to the broadcaster’s reliance on a migration notice issued by the distributor, the Court held that this could not imply an agreement to include the channels in bouquets.
"Had it been intended that the respondent no.3 is obliged to make the channel of the petitioner as part of its bouquet offering... then nothing would have been easier than to so provide [in] the Channel Placement Agreement/s," the Court reasoned.
Further, the Court rejected the argument that historical inclusion of the channels in bouquets created a legal right.
"The fact that the respondent no.3 has been including the channel of the petitioner as part of its ‘bouquets offerings’... does not, by itself, create any legal right in favour of the petitioner for continuation of the same arrangement," the order said.
The Court also upheld the respondent’s right to discontinue existing bouquets, subject to compliance with Regulation 11 of the Quality of Service (QoS) Regulations of 2017 which mandates prior notice to subscribers thereby, noting that the cable operators were right
The judgment referenced Supreme Court and High Court precedents to emphasise the limited scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227.
"The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals," the Court ruled while dismissing the petitions.
TV9 was represented by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh along with advocates Payal Kakra, Ehraz Zafar, Akash Tyagi, Pranav, Mayank Rai, Jadaun, Tanya Gupta, Shivam Mehrotra, Rangasaran Mohan, Amarpal Singh Dua and Suraj.
The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Ramji Srinivasan, and Kunal Tandon. Central Government Standing Counsel Mukul Singh, Rakesh Kumar and Rohan Jaitley represented the Government.
[Read Judgment]