Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging interim orders passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). The Court held that there was no justification to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the impugned orders merely permitted the distributor to offer the broadcaster’s channels on an a-la-carte basis and did not contravene any binding contractual or regulatory provision. The petitions were consequently dismissed, with all pending applications also disposed of.

The petitions before the High Court were filed by a broadcasting company that operates several television channels under the ‘TV9 Network’ brand. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking quashing of TDSAT’s interim orders dated 06.02.2025 and 25.02.2025, which modified earlier directions mandating uninterrupted transmission of the petitioner’s channels—specifically ‘TV9 Telugu’ and ‘NTV Telugu’—by a Multi System Operator (MSO), referred to as respondent no.3.

Also Read: "Supreme Court Upholds Piramal's Resolution Plan for DHFL, Sets Aside NCLAT Order, Says 'NCLAT Ought Not to Have Tinkered with the Clause'"

The underlying dispute stemmed from the MSO’s action of switching off the petitioner’s channels in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on 06.06.2024. This act allegedly contravened Regulation 17 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017, which mandates a minimum three-week notice prior to disconnection of signals.

In response, the petitioner approached the TDSAT, which initially granted interim protection via its order dated 05.07.2024. The TDSAT directed that the channels be transmitted “uninterrupted and unhindered” on the same Logical Channel Number (LCN), position, and package as they were before the disconnection. This was further confirmed by an order dated 13.09.2024.

The dispute escalated when respondent no.3 issued migration notices, seeking to move the petitioner’s channels from bouquet offerings to a-la-carte options. The petitioner challenged these notices, contending that such migration violated the earlier interim orders and the Channel Placement Agreement executed between the parties.

The TDSAT, via its interim orders dated 20.11.2024, 21.11.2024, and 04.12.2024, restrained the MSO from implementing the migration notices. However, respondent no.3 filed modification applications, which were allowed by TDSAT through its impugned orders. The Tribunal held that MSOs are allowed to restructure their bouquets under Regulation 11 of the Quality of Service (QoS) Regulations, 2017, and that broadcasters cannot stipulate bouquet inclusion under Regulation 3(4) of the Interconnection Regulations, 2017.

Aggrieved, the petitioner invoked Article 226, arguing that these interim orders prejudiced its rights and were based on an erroneous reading of regulatory provisions and contractual obligations. The petitioner contended that the Channel Placement Agreement extended beyond LCN allocation and included an understanding to feature its channels in all bouquets offered by the MSO.

The petitioner further asserted that Regulation 18(4) mandates retention of LCN for a period of one year and that Regulation 3(4) permits mutually negotiated commercial arrangements, thereby validating their agreement.

The MSO, in reply, questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions, contending that no part of the cause of action arose within Delhi’s jurisdiction. It further submitted that the impugned orders were interlocutory and did not prejudice any final right, and that the agreement with the petitioner was solely for LCN placement—not bouquet inclusion.

The MSO also raised the issue of suppression of material facts, alleging that the petitioner had not disclosed ongoing litigation in the Andhra Pradesh High Court which was disposed of on 22.01.2025 due to a mutual understanding between the parties to pursue TDSAT proceedings.

Justice Sachin Datta recorded that “there is no justification to interfere with the impugned order/s in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” The Court noted that “the impugned order gives multiple reasons for modifying the pre-existing interim order/s passed in favour of the petitioner.”

The Court referred to the applicable regulations to evaluate the legality of the TDSAT’s reasoning: “The impugned order takes note of the extant Regulatory mechanism and on the basis of Regulation 3(4) read with Regulation 10(11) of the Interconnection Regulations, 2017, reaches the conclusion that the same clearly proscribes a Broadcaster from proposing, stipulating or demanding, directly or indirectly, packaging of its channel in any particular bouquet offered by the Distributor.”

The Court further noted: “Even assuming the petitioner is right in contending that it is possible to enter into an agreement in derogation of Regulation 3(4) … a bare perusal of the Channel Placement Agreement/s between the parties reveals that the same does not even deal with or contain any provision as regards making the channel/s … a part of any bouquet/s.”

Regarding the petitioner’s claim about LCN rights, the Court observed: “Evidently, the only purport of the ‘Channel Placement Agreement/s’ executed between the parties was to assign a particular favourable/preferred LCN to the petitioner within its genre, for which the consideration was paid.”

On the issue of past bouquet placement, the Court stated: “The fact that the respondent no.3 has been including the channel … as part of its ‘bouquet offerings’ … in the past, does not, by itself, create any legal right … for continuation of the same arrangement.”

As to the MSO’s right to alter its bouquet, the Court found: “The impugned order also rightly notes that under Regulation 11 of the QoS Regulations, 2017, it is permissible … to discontinue any existing bouquet … by giving prior notice to the subscribers.”

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the MSO’s migration notice, stating: “Reliance sought to be placed on the migration notice issued by the respondent no.3 cannot by itself lead to an inference that there is an Agreement … for the purpose of including the channel … as part of the bouquets.”

Finally, the Court observed that “there is, prima facie, merit in the reasoning given in the impugned order” and “nothing amiss in the aforesaid findings, so as to warrant interference.” The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, emphasizing that supervisory jurisdiction does not permit review of interim orders unless there is a flagrant violation of legal principles.

Also Read: “A Person in Acute Agony Is Not Expected to Tell a Lie”: Orissa High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Murder Based on Eyewitness Testimony and Dying Declaration

The High Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and impugned orders, issued the following conclusion and final directive:

“In the aforesaid circumstances, 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 which, inter alia, claims compensation from the respondent/s. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved and shall necessarily be considered at the stage of disposal of the Broadcasting petitions.”

Accordingly, the judgment concludes: “This Court finds no merit in the present petitions; the same are, consequently, dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Mayank Rai, Mr. V.S. Jadaun, Ms. Tanya Gupta, Mr. Shivam Mehrotra, Mr. Rangasaran Mohan, Mr. Amarpal Singh Dua, Mr. Suraj, Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr. C. Sanal Nambiar, and Ms. Chetna Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC, Mr. Sunil, Mr. Gokul Sharma, Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC, Mr. Dev Pratap Shani, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC, Ms. Ira Singh, Mr. Kunal Tandon, Senior Advocate, Mr. Kumar Shashank Shekhar, Mr. Sharath Sampathi, Mr. Manikya Khanna, Mr. Aditya Krishna, Mr. Randeep Dahiya, Ms. Natasha Singh, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Shefali Munde, Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Mr. Sandip Munain, Ms. Jyotsna Vyas, and Mr. Ankur Sood, Advocates.

Case Title: Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors (along with other petitions)

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2642

Case Number: W.P.(C) 3147/2025 & Connected Matters

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

[Read/Download order]