The Delhi High Court has asserted that TRAI acted within its statutory authority under Sections 11 and 36 of the TRAI Act, 1997, read with the 2004 notification, in issuing Regulation 3 of the 2012 Regulations to impose a per clock hour ceiling on advertisement duration for broadcasting and cable services. The Court held that such regulation falls within TRAI’s power to prescribe standards of quality of service, including viewer experience, and constitutes a valid exercise of regulatory power.
The Court further held that the impugned framework is constitutionally valid because spectrum and airwaves are scarce public resources held in trust by the State, and their regulation must align with Articles 39(b) and 39(c) of the Constitution and the public trust doctrine. The per clock hour cap prevents excessive commercial exploitation and ensures equitable use of broadcast spectrum, thereby attracting the protection of Article 31-C.
Even otherwise, the restriction is reasonable under Article 19(6), does not violate Article 14, and does not impermissibly abridge Article 19(1)(a), since it is a neutral, time-based regulation of advertising quantity rather than content. Accordingly, the Court upholds Rule 7(11) of the 1994 Rules and Regulation 3 of the 2012 Regulations, as amended in 2013.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that, after the 2004 notification expanding the definition of “telecommunication service” under Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act, 1997 to include broadcasting and cable services, TRAI was competent to exercise regulatory powers over broadcasting and cable services. It held that Section 11(1)(b)(v) of the TRAI Act empowered TRAI to lay down standards of quality of service in order to protect consumer interest, and that such quality of service was not confined to technical or engineering aspects but extended to viewer experience in a time-bound medium such as television.
The Bench further observed that excessive or uneven commercial intrusion directly impairs a fair and reasonable viewing experience, and that the 12-minute per clock hour cap was a measured exercise of statutory power aimed at reducing excessive commercial breaks and preventing artificial clustering of advertisements.
The Bench also observed that spectrum and airwaves are scarce, finite public resources held by the State in trust, and therefore access to and use of such resources is conditional, regulated and circumscribed by statutory and constitutional limitations. It held that broadcasters cannot claim an unfettered right to exploit spectrum for commercial purposes, and that the impugned framework bore a proximate and rational nexus to Articles 39(b) and 39(c) of the Constitution by preventing excessive commercial exploitation, safeguarding consumer interest, and ensuring equitable and efficient utilisation of broadcast spectrum. On this reasoning, the Bench held that the measures were protected by Article 31-C of the Constitution.
The Bench further observed that the petitioners’ grievance regarding loss of advertising revenue fell primarily within Article 19(1)(g) and not the core of Article 19(1)(a), and that the 12-minute cap was a neutral, time-based regulation which did not prohibit any category of advertisement or restrict programme content, but merely regulated the quantity of advertising time. It distinguished the print media precedents relied upon by the petitioners, on the basis that print media uses privately owned resources, whereas broadcasting media operates through public spectrum and is subject to a licensing and regulatory regime in public interest.
The Bench also rejected the Article 14 challenge, holding that the framework rested on an intelligible and rational distinction between programme content and advertisement time, was consumer-centric, and was neither capricious nor disproportionate.
Briefly, batch of 17 petitions were filed by three groups of petitioners, namely, general entertainment channels, news broadcasters and regional channels, challenging Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 and Regulation 3 of the Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) Regulations, 2012, as amended in 2013. The common challenge was to the fixation of a ceiling of 10+2 minutes per clock hour for advertisements, comprising 10 minutes for commercial advertisements and 2 minutes for self-promotional advertisements, with the principal objection being not to the 12-minute ceiling per se, but to its operation on a “per clock hour” basis.
The petitioners contended that the impugned framework violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. In substance, the controversy rested upon the validity of Regulation 3 of the 2012 Regulations, since the validity of the impugned Rule was inextricably linked to and dependent upon it.
