STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED versus DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 30-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
128                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION
& ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7326-7327 of 2018)
OCTOBER 30, 2018
[R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services
Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 –
Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth)
(Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2017 – Constitutionality of the
Regulation and Tariff Order challenged – Held: The Regulation
and the Tariff Order were made keeping the interests of the
stakeholders and the consumers in mind and are intra vires the
regulatory power contained in s.36 of the TRAI Act.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997:
ss.11(1)(a)(iv), 11(1)(b), 36(1) – Role of TRAI – TRAI acts as a
regulatory authority, which looks to the interest of both broadcaster
and subscriber so as to provide a level playing field for both –   The
broadcaster is free to provide whatever content he chooses for the
TV channels that he chooses to transmit to the ultimate consumer –
At no stage is content of a TV channel sought to be regulated, and
that pricing relating to TV channels laid down in the Regulation
and Tariff Order is a balancing act between the rights of
broadcasters and the interests of consumers – The broadcaster is
free to arrange pricing of his TV channels so long as they are non-
discriminatory and do not otherwise have the effect of unreasonably
restricting the choice of a subscriber to choose bouquet or a-la-
carte channels – Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable)
Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017
– Clause 2(j).
Copyright Act, 1957: s.2(dd) – The case of appellants was
that content that is carried by transmission from the broadcasters
to the ultimate consumer is regulated only by the Copyright Act and
any royalties charged are governed only by Copyright Act and this
being the case, when TRAI fixes rates and/or interferes with content,
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 128
128
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
129
it is trespassing into the exclusive domain set out by Parliament
under the Copyright Act and since the TRAI Act and the Copyright
Act, both are Acts passed by Parliament, they have to be harmonised,
and such harmony can be maintained if TRAI is kept out altogether
from the domain covered by the Copyright Act – Held: When the
definitions of “broadcast” in s.2(dd) of the Copyright Act and of
“broadcasting services” in Clause 2(j) of the impugned Regulation
are compared, it is clear that the words “intended to be received by
the general public either directly or indirectly” are completely missing
from the definition of “broadcast” contained in the Copyright –
Therefore, copyright is meant to protect the proprietary interest of
the owner, which in the instant case is a broadcaster, in the “work”,
i.e. the original work, its broadcast and/or its re-broadcast by him
– The interest of the end user or consumer is not the focus of the
Copyright Act at all – On the other hand, the TRAI Act has to focus
on broadcasting services provided by the broadcaster that impact
the ultimate consumer – The two Acts operate in different fields – In
this view of the matter, the Copyright Act will operate within its own
sphere, the broadcaster being given full flexibility to either
individually or in the form of a society charge royalty or
compensation – TRAI, while exercising its regulatory functions
under the TRAI Act, does not at all, in substance, impinge upon any
of these rights, but merely acts,  as a regulator, in the public interest,
of broadcasting services provided by broadcasters and availed of
by the ultimate consumer – Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
Act, 1997 – Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services
Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017.
Interpretation of statutes: Harmonious construction –
Copyright Act, 1957 – Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act,
1997 – Held: Both the Copyright Act as well as the TRAI Act are
central enactments which do not expressly provide that the one
overrides the other – In this situation, both the Acts are to be
harmonized in the event of any clash/conflict between the two so
that both may be given effect to – Since the Telegraph Authority,
acting under the Telegraph Act and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy
Act, is required to act in public interest, the jurisdiction of the said
Authority is left untramm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.