CABLE TELEVISION REGULATION ACT, 1995

Subject Matter : Registration
Relevant Section : Section 3: No person shall operate a cable television network unless he is registered as a cable operator under this Act.
Section 4: Any person who is desirous of operating or is operating a cable television network may apply for registration or renewal of registration, as a cable operator to the registering authority after fulfilling such eligibility criteria and conditions as may be prescribed and different eligibility criteria may be prescribed for different categories of cable operators.
Key Issue : a. Whether the petitioner can voluntarily provide services through DAS (Digital Addressable System) mode in areas which are not yet notified for providing DAS service?
b. If so, whether the Digital Addressable System installed by the petitioner has any shortcomings?
c. Whether it is entitled to receive the signals from the respondents?
Citation Details : Wiretel Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. (22.04.2014 - TDSAT): MANU/TD/0012/2014
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The petitioner expressed its desire to obtain signals of the respondent. Some correspondence was exchanged between the parties with regard to the time line for implementation of DAS. Subsequently, when the petitioner approached the Tribunal, it ordered to settle the dispute and differences amongst themselves. The respondent contended that the permission granted to petitioner by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to the petitioner is for operating as a Multi System Operator in the DAS in the notified cities/towns/areas of Andhra Pradesh and not anywhere else.

Held: The Tribunal held that otherwise also the petitioner was registered by the postal authorities at Mangalagiri for running a cable television network in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The permission, which provides that no Multi System Operator shall provide cable television network services with Addressable Systems in any one or more notified areas without a valid permission from the Central Government, is required only for operating in DAS notified areas. For areas other than DAS areas, the cable operator has to be registered under Section 3 of The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. Since the petitioner in this case had valid registration as a cable operator as well as permission to operate in DAS notified areas from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting when it applied for signals of the respondents, the respondents could not have denied its signals to the petitioner on this ground.

Subject Matter : Compulsory transmission of Doordarshan channels.
Relevant Section : Section 8: The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the names of Doordarshan channels or the channels operated by or on behalf of Parliament, to be mandatorily carried by the cable operators in their cable service and the manner of reception and re-transmission of such channels.
Key Issue : Whether it is mandatory to transmit the Doordarshan channels?
Citation Details : Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Ors. (22.08.2017 - SC): MANU/SC/1041/2017
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The Respondents and its original assignee had moved the High Court of Delhi by way of petition seeking directions to the Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation to encrypt Doordarshan's Satellite Transportation Feed of live broadcasting signals of cricket matches organized by the Respondent to the Doordarshan Kendras and transmission towers throughout Country for subsequent broadcasts on Doordarshan's terrestrial and DTH networks. The validity of S.3 of the Sports Act, 2007 & S.8 of Cable Act, 1995 was also challenged. The aforesaid appeal and petition were allowed by the Division Bench by holding that on an interpretation of the said provisions, the signals received by Prasar Bharati from the Respondents should not be placed in the designated Doordarshan channels which were to be compulsorily carried by the Cable Operators. Hence, present appeal.

Held: It was held that S. 8 of the Cable Act imposes an obligation on the Cable Operators to carry/transmit such Doordarshan channels or the channels operated by or on behalf of Parliament, as may be, notified in the Official Gazette. The legislature has not specified any particular channel which must be mandatorily carried by Cable Operators. The task has been left to the Central Government. It will, therefore, be not wrong to understand the obligation cast on Cable Operators to transmit the DD1 (National) channel and the transmission of Live feed of major sports events of national importance on the said channel by the Doordarshan as a matter of mere coincidence instead of a legislative mandate. Surely, the effect and operation of Section 3 of the Sports Act cannot be left to be decided on the basis of the discretion of the Central Government to include and subsequently exclude DD1 (National) channel in a notification to be published Under Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995.

Subject Matter : Offences and Penalties
Relevant Section : Section 5: No person shall transmit or re-transmit through a cable service any programme unless such programme is in conformity with the prescribed programme code.
Section 16(1)(b): Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act shall be punishable for every subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to Rs. 5, 000.
Section 18: No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by any authorised officer.
Key Issue : Whether offence complained of against the Petitioner punishable under Section 5 read with Section 16(1)(b) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 is a cognizable offence?
Citation Details : U.S.A. Cable Networks and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (01.03.2011 - BOMHC): MANU/MH/0239/2011
Summary Judgment :

Facts: In the present case, F.I.R. was registered on the basis of complaint which discloses that the Petitioners had transmitted promos which were not in conformity with the prescribed programme code. Inspite of directions Petitioners had continued to transmit the offending promos on their cable television network unabated. Therefore, Authorities was within their powers to order seizure of equipment used for operating the cable television network.

Held: The court held that Going by Section 16(1)(b), as is applicable to the present case, it will have to be treated as a cognizable offence as it is punishable by sentence up to five years as except Section 16, there is no other provision which would throw light on this aspect. The court held that when the act does not tell us about the type of offence then help of criminal procedure code should be take and after reading the said code and definitions of cognizable and non-cognizable offence. In the present case, the complaint is in respect of contravention of Section 5 read with Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, it would be a case of cognizable offence.

Subject Matter : Power to prohibit operation of cable television network in public interest
Relevant Section : Section 20: Where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in public interest, it may prohibit the operation of any cable television network in such areas as it may, by notification in the Official Gazette.
Key Issue : Whether the present petiton is maintainable?
Citation Details : Syed Mujtaba Athar and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors. (29.08.2020 - DELHC): MANU/DE/1687/2020
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The present application has been filed seeking vacation of the interim order passed by this Court on 28.08.2020 restraining the telecast of the programme titled 'Bindas Bol' which was scheduled to be telecast on 28.08.2020 at 8.00 p.m. by the respondent. The Central Government has already issued a Notice to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 seeking clarification on the program in the context of the Programme Code.

Held: The Supreme Court held that that under the statutory provisions, competent authorities are vested with powers to ensure compliance with law. S 20(2) of the Act empowers the Central Government to prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme, if it thinks it necessary or expedient to do so, in the interest of 'public order, decency or morality'. Also, S. 20(3) of the Act empowers the Central Government to prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any programme, which is not in conformity with the prescribed Programme Code referred to in Section 5 of the Act. Hence, the present petition was disposed off on directions.

Subject Matter : Application of other laws not barred.
Relevant Section : Section 2(aa) of UTTAR PRADESH CINEMAS (REGULATION) ACT, 1955: exhibition by means of video ; means an exhibition in public on payment for admission of moving pictures or series of pictures by playing or replaying and pre-recorded cassette by means of video cassette player whether on the screen of a television set or video scope or otherwise.
Section 21: The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of other laws for the time being in force.
Key Issue : Whether Section 2(aa) of UP Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 would apply to Respondent who was cable operator?
Citation Details : District Magistrate vs. Harish Malhotra (09.12.2014 - SC): MANU/SC/1162/2014
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The Respondent is a Cable Television Network Operator in Haridwar as per the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. He obtained necessary Licence to run the Cable Network. He is entitled to transmit and retransmit broadcasts and is bound by the liabilities and obligations pertaining to and including the Cinematography Act. The Respondent started two private channels with effect from April 1, 2009 and thereby he started transmitting live programmes of Haridwar and other programmes of interest, including Hindi songs and movies, with the assistance of a video recorder. On being informed that a separate license was required to run these channels, he approached the District Magistrate, Haridwar for obtaining the necessary license. The District Magistrate rejected his application in view of the restrictions imposed under the Uttarakhand Video Rules, 1988.

Held: It was held that in pursuance of Section 21 of the Cable Television Network Act, 1995, the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, including the programme code, are fully applicable to the Cable operator. The Respondent got himself registered Under Section 3 by depositing Rs. 500/- as registration fee. The Notification No. 145/XXVII (5) Entertainment Tax/2005 dated 17.8.2005 doesn't apply to the Respondent as it seeks to tax "Exhibition by means of Video". The Respondent's activities are not covered by the aforementioned expression. The expression can be said to be in pari materia and definition of a term under one Act, can be used to interpret provisions of rules under the other Act. The provisions of the U.P. (Cinemas) Regulation Act, 1955 do not apply to the Respondent and for the reason the expression "Exhibition by means of Video" within the meaning of 2(aa) of the said Regulation is not applicable to the Respondent.