Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 1st December, 2022
TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arunabh Chaudhary, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz and Mr. Karma Dorjee, Advocates
(M: 7838390214).
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, Mr. Yash Tyagi, Mr. Subhrodeep, Advocates (M-
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The challenge in this case rests on the distinction between club soda and whisky. For persons who consume the same, the distinction is quite clear! However, in the case of advertisements which are alleged to be surrogate, the lines are blurred.
3. This petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner – T.V. Today Network Ltd. challenging the impugned order bearing no. N-4l011/27/2020- BC.III dated 9th February, 2021 by which the Respondent – Union of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has directed the Petitioner to run an apology scroll in bold legible font at the bottom of the screen for two days continuously, with effect from 0001 hours on 16th February, 2021 to 0001 hours on 18th February, 2021. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “.. WHEREAS the Competent Authority, having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the recording, the written submission of Aaj Tak TV channel, the recommendations of the IMC, the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder, has come to a conclusion that there was a clear violation of Rule 7(2)(viii)(A) of the Advertising Code. NOW, THEREFORE, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, as explained above, the Competent Authority in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, hereby directs Aaj Tak TV channel to run an Apology Scroll in bold legible form at the bottom of the screen for two days continuously with effect from 0001 hours on 16.02.2021 till 0001 hours on 18.02.2021. Strict compliance with the above direction will be ensured by Aaj Tak IV channel …”
4. As per the impugned order passed by the Respondent, the Petitioner ran an advertisement of “All Seasons” Club Soda which was a surrogate advertisement for “All Seasons” Whisky, sold in a similar bottle and layout. The telecast of the advertisement took place during the LIVE coverage of the Independence Day event. The footage which was shown to the Court shows that in the said live telecast, an ‘L’ shaped advertisement was broadcast on the `Aaj Tak’ TV channel, which, according to the Petitioner, relates to the “All Seasons” Club soda product. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (hereinafter, ‘I&B Ministry’), however, found the same objectionable in terms of the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and issued a show cause notice on 7th September,
2020. Reply to the said notice was also filed by the Petitioner. After hearing the Petitioner, the I&B Ministry came to the conclusion that the colour and layout of the bottle being the same as the whisky bottle of the advertiser, the advertisement is nothing but surrogate advertising and hence, the direction to issue an apology was imposed.
5. This petition was listed before this Hon’ble Court on 15th February,
2021. After hearing the submissions made by the parties, considering the video advertisement footage, as also the notice replied in the impugned order, the Court had passed an order in the following terms:
6. In view of the aforementioned order dated 15th February, 2021 passed by this Court, the Respondent filed a short affidavit on the question of whether any uniform policy is followed for imposing penalties for violation of the ‘Programme code’ or ‘Advertising code’ (Rules 6, 7 of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 ). The said short affidavit states as under:
7. Today, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, relying on information obtained under the RTI Act, submits that the Petitioner was singled out for running an apology, whereas, similarly placed channels were merely given a warning by the I&B Ministry. This is disputed by ld. CGSC who has placed a note before the Court to state that insofar as the “All Seasons” advertisement was concerned, seven channels were directed to run an apology scroll and two channels had filed writ petitions before this Court. In one of the writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) 10982/2022 titled New Delhi Television Limited v. Union of India & Anr, the ld. Single Judge had directed as under:
8. Ld. CGSC further submits that as of June, 2021, the I&B Ministry has introduced amendments through the Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021. As per the said amendments, a statutory mechanism has been put in place for redressal of grievances and complaints of citizens relating to content broadcast of television channels. The said rules provide for a three level complaint redressal structure.
9. Heard and perused the record. Insofar as the objectionable advertisement was concerned, this Court by an interim order had observed after recording various reasons that the apology ought to be given by the Petitioner. However, due to the disproportionate nature of the extent of apology the same was reduced. The apology, as directed by the Court is already stated to have been run by the Petitioner.
10. Coming to the larger question as to whether such an apology could have been directed by the Respondent or not, under the extant Act and Rules, the introduction of the amendments in 2021, would be relevant. As per the amendments made to the Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021 vide notification dated 17th June, 2021 three levels of complaint redressal structure have been provided.
(i) Level I - A self-regulation by broadcasters;
(ii) Level II - Self-regulation by the self-regulating bodies of the broadcasters; and
(iii) Level III - Oversight mechanism by the Central Government.
11. There is no challenge to these amendments in this writ petition. Since a new mechanism and the structure for redressal of grievances and complaints has been put in place, the grounds raised in the petition would no longer survive. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the validity or legality of the amendments of 2021 in this writ petition.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and no further orders are called for in this matter. All pending applications are disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 1, 2022 Rahul/KT