Legal Dispute Between All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) and Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Editor: Sachin Dhingra

Petitioner- All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), represented by Mr. Tushar Singh, Ms. Akshra Arshi and Others.

Respondent- Star India Pvt Ltd (Star), represented by Saikrishna & Associates

Listed before- Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellant Tribunal (TDSAT)

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, Chairperson

• Hon'ble Mr. Subodh Kumar Gupta, Member

Case Status: Pending

Background:

The dispute arose from Star's practice of charging fees for its TV channel, Star Sports, while simultaneously offering free streaming on its OTT platform, Hotstar. The petitioner alleged a violation of Regulation 3(2) of The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulation, 2017.

Key Arguments:

Petitioner's Submissions:

• The petition, filed by AIDCF  on 29/08/2023, highlighted Star's inconsistency in charging for its Sports TV channel access but providing streaming of the same content on Hotstar for free during major events like the World Cup.

• Allegations of violation of Regulation 3(2) were emphasized, arguing that charging for the TV channel while providing it free on OTT amounted to discriminatory practices.

• The petitioner urged the tribunal to ensure either free TV channel access or impose charges on the app also.

• Emphasis on the discriminatory nature of charging on one platform while providing free access on another.

• Petitioner also urged that as per the abovementioned regulation, respondent should  provide the sports channel for free on the TV on non-discriminatory basis. 

• Counsel for petitioner also submitted that though OTT platforms are not mentioned in the regulation 2(r) of ‘distributive platform’. However, OTT platforms are using the internet, therefore, this tribunal has all the powers, jurisdiction, authority to hear this matter and decide the same.  

• Tribunal have jurisdiction as respondents are using the internet broadband; hence they are falling under the ambit of definition of Telegraph given in the Telegraph Act, 1885. 

Respondent's Counterarguments:

• Star's counsel clarified the dual roles of Star as a broadcaster and an OTT owner, citing a TRAI memorandum.

• It was further argued that the definition of 'distributive platform' was deemed exhaustive, arguing against the tribunal's ability to add to it.

• It was also contended by the Respondent that the Petitioner’s Counsel had overlooked the abovementioned regulation as they are for the regulation of TV channels, however, OTT platforms are not termed as TV channels. 

• The counsel for the Respondent submitted that the same issue has already been addressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition, in which TRAI was also a party. 

• The Respondent also pointed out precedents as to why OTTs are different from the TV channels and do not need regulation of the Central Government. 

• It was also contended by the Respondent that the present rules are governed under the IT Act, 2000 (framed in 2021) and not under the provisions of TRAI. 

Tribunal's Observations:

• Prima facie, the tribunal acknowledged that OTT platforms fall under the purview of the IT Act, 2021, not TRAI.

• No prior cases under TRAI or the IT Act were identified in connection with this matter.

• The Tribunal asserted its position that the respondent, being an OTT platform, does not require a license from the Central Government.

• The tribunal highlighted the need for the respondent to maintain separability between its roles as a broadcaster and an OTT owner.

• As of the last hearing on 04/10/2023, no final decision has been reached, and the matter is pending the petitioner's rejoinder affidavit.

 This disclaimer informs readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author.