<p dir="auto">The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stay the Bombay High Court order which upheld Trai's new tariff order (NTO) mandating individual pricing for television channels.</p>.<p dir="auto">The HC had on June 30 upheld Trai’s decision.</p>.<p dir="auto">As per NTO 2.0, Trai reduced the cap on the MRP of individual channels, which can form part of any bouquet, to Rs 12 from Rs 19 per month, which was opposed by the Indian Broadcasting Federation.</p>.<p dir="auto">It also imposed conditions for the formation of channel bouquets, including a price cap.</p>.<p dir="auto">A bench presided over by Chief Justice N V Ramana refused to stay the HC order on a batch of appeals filed by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) and other broadcasters. However, it said that it will decide on granting any relief only after hearing the telecom regulator’s response on September 7, the next date of hearing.</p>.<p dir="auto">Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for IBF, argued that the HC order violated fundamental rights of broadcasters as the right to fix charges for television channels can't be regulated by authorities. He argued that when there is no public interest involved in the regulation of prices of cinema tickets, then how can the doctrine be used to cap prices of TV channels. Producers Guild also supported IBF's arguments and sought a stay of the HC order.</p>.<p dir="auto">Broadcasters also asserted that under Article 19 1G of the Constitution, the citizens are given a right to carry out business in a way, manner and form as deemed fit by the owner. Any restriction which has the effect of destroying the business or making it impossible for the profession to operate is an unreasonable restriction on the right to pursue a profession or trade.</p>.<p dir="auto">However, the Centre and Trai opposed the appeals, arguing that the HC passed the order which was in the interest of millions of consumers.</p>.<p dir="auto">IBF, a unified representative body of television broadcasters in India, claimed that Trai's action was arbitrary and wasn't backed by any consumer insight, claiming that the order will reduce television channels provided in a bouquet.</p>
<p dir="auto">The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stay the Bombay High Court order which upheld Trai's new tariff order (NTO) mandating individual pricing for television channels.</p>.<p dir="auto">The HC had on June 30 upheld Trai’s decision.</p>.<p dir="auto">As per NTO 2.0, Trai reduced the cap on the MRP of individual channels, which can form part of any bouquet, to Rs 12 from Rs 19 per month, which was opposed by the Indian Broadcasting Federation.</p>.<p dir="auto">It also imposed conditions for the formation of channel bouquets, including a price cap.</p>.<p dir="auto">A bench presided over by Chief Justice N V Ramana refused to stay the HC order on a batch of appeals filed by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) and other broadcasters. However, it said that it will decide on granting any relief only after hearing the telecom regulator’s response on September 7, the next date of hearing.</p>.<p dir="auto">Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for IBF, argued that the HC order violated fundamental rights of broadcasters as the right to fix charges for television channels can't be regulated by authorities. He argued that when there is no public interest involved in the regulation of prices of cinema tickets, then how can the doctrine be used to cap prices of TV channels. Producers Guild also supported IBF's arguments and sought a stay of the HC order.</p>.<p dir="auto">Broadcasters also asserted that under Article 19 1G of the Constitution, the citizens are given a right to carry out business in a way, manner and form as deemed fit by the owner. Any restriction which has the effect of destroying the business or making it impossible for the profession to operate is an unreasonable restriction on the right to pursue a profession or trade.</p>.<p dir="auto">However, the Centre and Trai opposed the appeals, arguing that the HC passed the order which was in the interest of millions of consumers.</p>.<p dir="auto">IBF, a unified representative body of television broadcasters in India, claimed that Trai's action was arbitrary and wasn't backed by any consumer insight, claiming that the order will reduce television channels provided in a bouquet.</p>
