The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) rule capping television advertising at 12 minutes per hour. .A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan rejected the petitions filed by a bunch of broadcasters challenging the time cap on ads.The Court reasoned that the TRAI acted within its statutory powers in framing the regulations, which were aimed at protecting viewers from excessive commercial interruptions. Notably, in December 2013, the High Court had restrained TRAI from acting against the channels. .Several general entertainment channels, news broadcasters and regional television networks challenged Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, and TRAI’s 2012 and 2013 regulations that imposed a ceiling of 10 minutes of commercial advertisements and two minutes of self-promotional content every hour.Broadcasters argued that the per clock hour cap violated their rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, contending that advertising revenue was essential for the survival of television channels, especially free-to-air and regional broadcasters. News broadcasters claimed the restriction directly affected commercial speech protected under Article 19(1)(a), while regional channels said the cap threatened their financial viability..However, the Court rejected these arguments and held that the regulations were aimed at improving the quality of viewing experience for consumers. The Bench observed that television viewers could not skip advertisements in real time and excessive interruptions adversely affected audience interests.It said the 12-minute cap was a “code-based normative standard” intended to balance commercial interests with consumer welfare."Keeping in view the above position of law, as well as the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present Petitions are dismissed. The Regulation 3 of the Regulation of 2012 passed by the TRAI, effectuating Rule 7 (11) of the Rule of 1994, which are under challenge herein, fail to meet the rights envisaged under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution," the Bench ultimately ruled. .[Read Judgement]
