Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Srinivasa Reddy vs Secretary To Government, Govt. Of Indai ... on 9 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)ALD277
JUDGMENT
1. Under W.P.No.6772 of 1996 the petitioner (M/s. Sri Sai Star TV Service) seeks a declaration that the 1st respondent is not laying down any restriction for registration of application for Cable Television Networks operators inspite of powers conferred on him under Section 22 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act,1995 (for short 'the Act') is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to frame rules by imposing restricting regulating the registration in the interest of public.
2. Under W.P. No. 6057 of 1997, the petitioner (K.Srinivasa Reddy) seeks the same remedy as in the above Writ Petition.
3. Since the reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions are same and common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these two writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment
4. The petitioners assail the power of the Government for recording registration and granting licence on the ground that the statute contains no guidelines for issuance of licence which has resulted into mushrooming of cable operators and unhealthy competition, being indulged into by them. For the purpose of registration, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that some restrictions were required to be issued in relation to population as well as distance/ area of operation. Absence of such guidelines has created a situation of chaos and mismanagement of the entire system.
5. The Assistant Postmaster-General (S & V) in the office of the Chief Post Master General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. At the outset he points out that the petitioner in W.P.No.6772 of 1996 has not been registered as Cable Television Operator under the name and style of M/s. Sri Sai Star T.V. Service. Its own action in operating a Cable Television without registration is illegal and void and the same also contravenes Section 3 of the Act and calls for a deterrent action under Section 11 of the Act Further according to the deponent, a cable TV operator who provides better service to the subscribers will survive in the long run and the Government felt that any restrictions of the nature urged by the petitioner, if imposed, will result into denying equal opportunity to new applicants and, therefore, the same is not desirable. Further, according to him, in order to check the showing of undesirable programmes and advertisements on cable television, Sections 5 and 6 of the Act stipulate that programmes shown in cable television channels the reception of which requires use of any gadgets or decoders are required to be adhered to programme and advertisement codes prescribed in the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules'). The said Rules \vere notified on 29-9-1994 when the Cable Television Ordinance, 1994 was promulgated by the President. There was no restriction on registration of Cable Television Operators and, therefore, the question of any monopoly being created in favour of any Cable Operator did not arise. The Government did not intend to restrict the number of Cable Operators in any particular area. All those who could fulfil the conditions stipulated in the Act/Rules could get themselves registered with the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provided that the registering authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to grant registration if it is satisfied that the applicant did not fulfil or was not capable of fulfilling the conditions specified in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act which reads as follows:
"(e) 'person' means
(i) an individual who is a citizen of India
(ii) an association of individuals or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, whose members are citizens of India.
(iii) a Company in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the citizen of India."
6. It is further stated by the deponent on behalf of the respondents-Government that the Act merely provided for registration of Cable Television Network Operators and that there was no system of licencing of Cable Television Networks. Further, according to the deponent, the logic or guidelines prescribed in case of licensing of Cinema Houses' or Educational Institutions could not be made applicable in case of Cable Television Networks. Further according to him, as per Rule 4 of the Rules, the registering authority has to examine the application for registration having regard to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and if it was satisfied that the conditions stipulated therein were fulfilled by the applicant, a Certificate of Registration was issued by the Registering authority, and that whatever restrictions/conditions were felt necessary by the Government for regulating the Cable Television Networks in the country had been included in the Act/Rules.
7. It would thus appear that the policy of "survival of the fittest" is adopted by the Government in this field of Cable Television Networks. If that is the policy, it would not be in order for this Court to interfere with the policy of Ihe Government and to direct any modifications to be incorporated in the statute imposing restrictions on issuing licences by adopting restrictions in relation to population or area/distance or any other factor of the like nature. We can take judicial notice of the fact that the laissez-faire policy adopted by the Government in the country has virtually substituted the policy of State Planning and Control in industrial and commercial circles. Whatever may be the merits and demerits of such policy, it is not within the domain of the judiciary to pass any order or issue any direction which may have the effect of compelling the Government to deviate from the accepted policy even if it is in core sector. It is true, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents, that the policy adopted by the Government would tend to reduce the monopolistic hold in industrial and commercial sectors including the industrial activity in the core sector and PSUs' (Public Sector Undertakings). In that view of the matter, the "restrictions" or in the words of the petitioners "guidelines" cannot be compelled to be incorporated in the concerned statute.
8. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons stated under the Act, it has been recorded that there has been a haphazard mushrooming of cable television networks all over the country during the last few years as a result of the availability of signals of foreign television networks via satellites. This had been perceived as a "cultural invasion" in many quarters since the programmes available on these satellite channels were predominantly western and totally alien to our culture and way of life. Since there was no regulation of these cable television networks, lot of undesirable programmes and advertisements were becoming available to the viewers without any kind of censorship.
9. It was also felt that the subscribers of these cable television networks, the programmers and the cable operators themselves were not aware of their rights, responsibilities and obligations in respect of the quality of service, technical as well as content-wise, use of material protected by copyright, exhibition of uncertified films, protection of subscribers from anti-national broadcasts from sources inimical to our national interest, responsiveness to the genuine grievances of the subscribers and a perceived willingness to operate within the broad framework of the laws of the land, e.g., the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Copyright Act, 1957, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
10. In the background of the above situation, the Government considered it necessary to regulate the operation of Cable Television Networks in the entire country so as to bring out uniformity in their operation. It would thus enable the optimal exploitation of this technology which had the potential of making available to the subscribers a vast pool of information and entertainment.
11. The provisions of the Act, therefore, seem to have been largely based on the requirement of protecting cultural invasion on the way of life which the people of this country have been accustomed to live and to save the people' of the country from the influence of western culture at the cost of the traditional oriental culture. The provisions of the statute have, therefore, to be viewed from this angle rather than any professional angle for conferring any commercial advantage. The absence of guidelines in the statute sub-serving commercial angle does not give us a reason to believe that any vacuum or lacuna has been left advertently or inadvertently in the statute so as to make it necessary for the judiciary to give any direction in that regard.
12. In view of the consideration mainly focussed on the shield against cultural invasion, the guidelines serving commercial angle as contemplated by the writ petitioners do not warrant any direction to be issued by the Court to the Government. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, with no order as to costs.