New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday asked JioStar India Pvt Ltd to approach the Delhi High Court with its plea that it did not want to amend its pending petitions there challenging parts of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s regulatory framework on television channel pricing.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi to move the high court with its plea and disposed of the transfer petition filed by JioStar India Pvt Ltd.
The broadcaster had moved the top court through law firm Karanjawala and Co.
The bench was hearing two pleas concerning the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) regulatory regime, including tariff orders, maximum retail price (MRP) caps and discount structures governing cable and DTH distribution.
Rohatgi, appearing for JioStar, argued that the TRAI’s regulations and tariff orders were intrinsically linked and interconnected even though they stem from different sources of power.
Drawing a distinction between the two, he said that regulations constitute delegated legislation and, therefore, can only be challenged before a high court.
However, the tariff orders are administrative in nature and fall within the jurisdiction of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).
A tariff order and a regulation were issued simultaneously. One was in the exercise of legislative power and the other in the exercise of administrative power, he said.
He cited the definition of subscriber under the framework and said that the regulations treated a luxury hotel with hundreds of television sets at par with a single-bedroom residential household for pricing purposes.
We say that if a hotel is charging Rs 50,000 per room, there has to be a distinction between commercial exploitation of a signal and a residential household. You cannot have the same tariff. It is like comparing apples with oranges, he said.
JioStar had filed petitions before the Delhi High Court in 2014 and 2015 challenging both the regulations and the tariff orders.
Those petitions remained pending because similar issues arising from proceedings before TDSAT were already under consideration before the Supreme Court.
He said the high court had unnecessarily directed amendment of the petitions while imposing costs, despite the broadcaster maintaining that no amendment was required.
Rohatgi repeatedly asked, Why costs and said the order indicated that the court had already formed an opinion that the petitions would otherwise be rejected.
The bench asked the broadcaster to approach the Delhi High Court with a plea.
It would be better if you go back. In light of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the interim order, move an application before the high court stating that you do not wish to amend your petition, the CJI said.
The senior lawyer said the broadcaster would withdraw the transfer petition and move an appropriate application before the High Court.
I do not require any amendment. I do not want to amend… I will withdraw this petition and move an appropriate application before the learned Judge. I do not propose to abandon my case, he said.
