The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of a transfer petition filed by JioStar India Pvt Ltd, directing the media company to return to the Delhi High Court to clarify that it does not intend to modify its decade-old legal challenges against television channel pricing regulations.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana stated that the broadcaster should file an application before the high court explicitly opting out of amending its petitions. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing JioStar, subsequently agreed to withdraw the transfer plea from the apex court and submit the necessary application to the High Court judge.
Delhi High Court Proceedings And Cost Challenge
The matter originates from petitions JioStar filed through law firm Karanjawala and Co. in 2014 and 2015. The filings challenged regulatory frameworks issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), including tariff orders, maximum retail price caps, and discount structures for cable and Direct-To-Home distribution.
Those proceedings had remained pending in the Delhi High Court while related legal issues from the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal were being evaluated by the Supreme Court. Recently, the High Court instructed JioStar to amend its petitions and imposed monetary costs.
Challenging that directive, Rohatgi questioned the rationale behind imposing costs when the company had explicitly maintained that no amendments were required. He noted that such orders created an impression that the High Court had already determined the petitions would be dismissed otherwise, asserting that JioStar had no intention of abandoning its claims or altering its case.
Jurisdictional Divide And Commercial Pricing Concerns
Explaining the legal framework, Rohatgi stated that while TRAI regulations and tariff orders are issued concurrently and closely interconnected, they derive from different authority sources. He submitted that regulations stem from delegated legislative powers and fall under High Court jurisdiction, whereas administrative tariff orders come under the purview of TDSAT.
Highlighting specific flaws in the framework, Rohatgi pointed to TRAI’s definition of subscribers. He argued that the present rules treat commercial establishments, such as luxury hotels charging Rs 50,000 per room, on par with single-bedroom residential households for pricing purposes. He maintained that the framework fails to make an essential distinction between commercial exploitation of signal feeds and ordinary domestic television viewing.
Following the Supreme Court’s observation that the company should formally notify the High Court of its stance, JioStar confirmed it would seek relief directly through an appropriate application in the pending High Court proceedings.
