Case: STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION

by following the rules. It shall publish the date of coming into of the revised Tariff Scheme at least before two months in advance and the same shall be posted on its website.”62. At this juncture, it is of a little importance to compare and contrast Section 2(dd) of the Copyright Act with “broadcasting services” as defined in the impugned Regulation and Tariff Order. By Clause 2(j) of the impugned Regulation, “broadcasting services” is defined as follows:"2(j) “broadcasting services” means the dissemination of any form of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds by transmission of electro-magnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by the general public either directly or indirectly and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;”63. When the definitions of “broadcast” in Section 2(dd) of the Copyright Act and of “broadcasting services” in Clause 2(j) of the impugned Regulation are compared, what is clear is 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 Act. Also, Section 52(1)(b) of the Copyright Act indicates that transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public is not an act that would constitute infringement of copyright. Section 52(1)(b) reads as follows:“52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copright.- (1) The following acts shall no constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:-xxx xxx xxx(b) the transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public;”64. The picture that, therefore, emerges is that copyright is meant to protect the proprietary interest of the owner, which in the present 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 focus, therefore, of TRAI is that of a regulatory authority, which looks to the interest of both broadcaster and subscriber so as to provide a level playing field for both in which regulations can be laid down which affect the manner and carriage of broadcast to the ultimate consumers. Once the relative scope of both the enactments is understood as above, there can be no difficulty in stating that the two Acts operate in different fields. We do not find on a reading of the impugned Regulation as well as the Tariff Order made that TRAI has transgressed into copyright land. This is for the reason, as has been stated hereinabove, that regulations which allegedly impact packaging TV channels, pricing of TV channels and the broadcaster’s right to arrange his business as he pleases, all have to be viewed with the lens of a regulatory authority, which is to provide a level playing field between broadcaster and subscriber. We have also noted how the broadcaster is free to provide whatever content he chooses for the TV channels that he chooses to transmit to the ultimate consumer. We have also noted how 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 as has been held hereinabove. We are satisfied that the impugned Regulation and Tariff Order have been passed by a regulatory authority after applying its mind to the objections of the various stakeholders involved after which the Regulation and Tariff Order have been laid down which have, by and large, been initially acceded to by the broadcasters themselves. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that 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 for the three kinds of copyright mentioned hereinabove. 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 has been stated hereinabove, as a regulator, in the public interest, of broadcasting services provided by broadcasters and availed of by the ultimate consumer.65. As Dr. Singhvi has repeatedly stressed that fixation of rates under Section 11(2) would directly impinge upon compensation payable for copyright to the broadcasters, it is important to note that 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, a basic principle of interpretation of statutes is that both Acts be harmonized in the event of any clash/conflict between the two so that both may be given effect to. In fact, Section 38 of the TRAI Act reads as under:-“38. Application of certain laws. – The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (17 of 1933) and, in particular, nothing in this Act shall affect any jurisdiction, powers and functions required to be exercised or performed by the Telegraph Authority in relation to any area falling within the jurisdiction of such Authority.”66. 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 untrammeled by the provisions of the TRAI Act. It can thus be seen that TRAI and the Telegraph Authority both act in public interest. The TRAI Act, the Telegraph Act and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, being statutes in pari materia, form a Code, insofar as wireless telegraphy and broadcasting is concerned.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]30. We are of the view that the provisions of the TRAI Act have to be viewed in the light of protection of the interests of both service providers and consumers. This being so, it is clear that no constricted meaning can be given to the provisions of this Act. It is important to remember that under Section 11(1)(a)(iv), one of the functions of the Authority, though recommendatory, is to facilitate competition and promote efficiency in the operation of telecommunication services (which includes broadcasting services) so as to facilitate growth in such services. What is also clear from Section 11(1)(b), is that terms and conditions of interconnectivity between different service providers have to be fixed, which necessarily includes terms that relate not only to carriage simpliciter as submitted by Dr. Singhvi, but to all terms and conditions of interconnectivity between broadcaster, MSO, Cable TV operator and the ultimate consumer, so as to ensure that the object of the Act is carried out, namely, that both broadcasters and consumers get a fair deal. Towards this end, Section 11(2) makes it clear that the Authority may, from time to time, notify the rates at which telecommunication services, including broadcasting services, within India and outside India, shall be provided under this Act. Dr. Singhvi argued that the literal language of thiswhich would undoubtedly bring in rates laid down in the Tariff Order, would have to be constricted by the language of the last part of the provision,the rates at which messages shall be transmitted to any country outsideWe are afraid that this is against basic canons of construction, as the expressionwould only refer to a part of what precedes the expression and cannot therefore constrict the part that has gone before. The plain literal language of Section 11(2) makes it clear that rates at which broadcasting services are offered within and outside India can be fixed by TRAI. It is clear therefore that when rates are fixed after several rounds of consultations between various service providers and consumers, looking to the interest of each, it is impossible to say that anyrights have been impinged upon. Shri Dwivedi is absolutely right in saying that 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, which we may hasten to add has not been impugned on the ground that any right or fundamental right is violated, but only on the ground that the Regulation as well as the Tariff Order are outside theof TRAI. Dr.argument on this score must therefore fail.It is only when TRAI issued a second consultation paper dated 4.5.2016 that Star India submitted its response in June, 2016 where it raised for the first time the issue relating to the Copyright Act as an afterthought. What is important to notice is that even in this response, Star India reiterated that discount caps should be provided for as this checks discriminatory behavior during negotiation and will facilitate designing of discount criteria based on intelligible differentia which will help serve the diverse needs of consumers. In a third response to the draft regulations and tariff order, Star India raised jurisdictional issues of TRAI.It can thus be seen that both the Regulation as well as the Tariff Order have been the subject matter of extensive discussions between TRAI, all stake holders and consumers, pursuant to which most of the suggestions given by the broadcasters themselves have been accepted and incorporated into the Regulation and the Tariff Order. The Explanatory Memorandum shows that the focus of the Authority has always been the provision of a level playing field to both broadcaster and subscriber. For example, when high discounts are offered for bouquets that are offered by the broadcasters, the effect is that subscribers are forced to take bouquets only, as thecarte rates of the pay channels that are found in these bouquets are much higher. This results in perverse pricing of bouquetsindividual pay channels. In the process, the public ends up paying for unwanted channels, thereby blocking newer and better TV channels and restrictingchoice. It is for this reason that discounts are capped. While doing so, however, full flexibility has been given to broadcasters to declare the prices of their pay channels on anbasis. The Authority has shown that it does not encroach upon the freedom of broadcasters to arrange their business as they choose. Also, when such discounts are limited, a subscriber can then be free to choosechannels of his choice. Thus, the flexibility of formation of a bouquet, i.e., the choice of channels to be included in the bouquet together with the content of such channels, is not touched by the Authority. It is only efforts aimed at thwarting competition and reducingcarte choice that are, therefore, being interfered with. Equally, when a ceiling of INR 19 on the maximum retail price of pay channels which can be provided as a part of a bouquet is fixed by the Authority, thefocus is to be fair to both the subscribers as well as the broadcasters. INR 19 is an improvement over the erstwhile ceiling of INR 15.12 fixed by the earlier regulation which nobody has challenged. To maintain the balance between theinterests, again the Authority makes it clear that broadcasters have complete freedom to price channels which do not form part of any bouquet and are offered only on ancarte basis. As market regulator, the Authority states that the impugned Regulation and Tariff Order are not written in stone but will be reviewed keeping a watch on the developments in the market. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the Regulation and the Tariff Order have been made keeping the interests of the stakeholders and the consumers in mind and are intra vires the regulation power contained in Section 36 of the TRAI Act. Consequently, we agree with the conclusion of the learned Chief Justice and the third learned Judge of the Madras High Court that these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.Shri Dwivedi is therefore right that the object of the Sports Act has nothing to do with the validity of the Regulation and Tariff Order made by TRAI under the TRAI Act. Content is referred to in the Sports Act only for the reason stated in the Objects and Reasons. Secondly, as has correctly been argued by Shri Dwivedi and as has been held by us above, the TRAI Act, as well as the Regulation and Tariff Order, do not in any manner affect the content of the TV channels that are broadcast by the broadcasters in these cases.A reading of the aforesaid provisions, according to the learned Senior Advocates for the appellants, makes it clear that broadcasters may, in fact, be the owners of the original copyright of a work – for example, if they themselves have produced a serial. They may also be the copyright owners of the broadcast of this serial which is a separate right under the Copyright Act which they are able to exploit, and if there is a rebroadcast of what has already been copyrighted, this again is protected by Chapter VIII of the Copyright Act. The argument, therefore, is that content that is carried by transmission from the broadcasters to the ultimate consumer is, therefore, regulated only by the Copyright Act and any royalties that can be charged for exploitation of the three rights as aforesaid are governed only by the Copyright Act. Further, the right to band themselves into a society is by virtue of Section 33, which mutatis mutandis applies to broadcasters alone. The tariff, therefore, that may be charged under Section 33A of the Copyright Act read with Rule 56 of the Copyright Rules is nothing but compensation that is payable to broadcasters for parting with their copyright in the manner indicated above. This being the case, when TRAI fixes rates and/or interferes with content, it is trespassing into the exclusive domain set out by Parliament under the Copyright Act. Since the TRAI Act and the Copyright Act, both being Acts passed by Parliament, have to be harmonised, such harmony can only be maintained if TRAI is kept out altogether from the domain covered by the Copyright Act.The picture that, therefore, emerges is that copyright is meant to protect the proprietary interest of the owner, which in the present case is a broadcaster, in thei.e. the original work, its broadcast and/or itsby 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 focus, therefore, of TRAI is that of a regulatory authority, which looks to the interest of both broadcaster and subscriber so as to provide a level playing field for both in which regulations can be laid down which affect the manner and carriage of broadcast to the ultimate consumers. Once the relative scope of both the enactments is understood as above, there can be no difficulty in stating that the two Acts operate in different fields. We do not find on a reading of the impugned Regulation as well as the Tariff Order made that TRAI has transgressed into copyright land. This is for the reason, as has been stated hereinabove, that regulations which allegedly impact packaging TV channels, pricing of TV channels and theright to arrange his business as he pleases, all have to be viewed with the lens of a regulatory authority, which is to provide a level playing field between broadcaster and subscriber. We have also noted how the broadcaster is free to provide whatever content he chooses for the TV channels that he chooses to transmit to the ultimate consumer. We have also noted how the broadcaster is free to arrange pricing of his TV channels so long as they are nondiscriminatory and do not otherwise have the effect of unreasonably restricting the choice of a subscriber to choose bouquet orchannels as has been held hereinabove. We are satisfied that the impugned Regulation and Tariff Order have been passed by a regulatory authority after applying its mind to the objections of the various stakeholders involved after which the Regulation and Tariff Order have been laid down which have, by and large, been initially acceded to by the broadcasters themselves. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that 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 for the three kinds of copyright mentioned hereinabove. 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 has been stated hereinabove, as a regulator, in the public interest, of broadcasting services provided by broadcasters and availed of by the ultimate consumer.65. As Dr. Singhvi has repeatedly stressed that fixation of rates under Section 11(2) would directly impinge upon compensation payable for copyright to the broadcasters, it is important to note that 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, a basic principle of interpretation of statutes is that both Acts 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 untrammeled by the provisions of the TRAI Act. It can thus be seen that TRAI and the Telegraph Authority both act in public interest. The TRAI Act, the Telegraph Act and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, being statutes in pari materia, form a Code, insofar as wireless telegraphy and broadcasting is concerned.