M. Sundar, J.

1. We propose to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common order as they arise out of the same set of facts and prayers are also the same.

2 Bare minimum facts which are absolutely essential (sans unnecessary details and particulars) for appreciating this order are set out infra under the caption 'Facts in a Nutshell'.

3. Facts in a Nutshell:

3(a) For several years, outside the print media, Akashvani was the only source of news and entertainment. Thereafter, it was Akashvani and Doordarshan for some time. This business of news and entertainment has undergone enormous development and growth over a period of time and particularly in the last one score and half a decade. While this growth is 'visible and tangible' in every sense of the expression, there was also a simultaneous spurt in awareness and growth of another arena which was intangible and not so 'visible' in that sense of the term that is more appropriate in the context of this factual matrix. That arena is Intellectual Property Rights, which has now come to stay as a branch of law christened by an abbreviation, i.e., 'IPR', denoting 'Intellectual Property Rights'. This lis before us, in our view is an offshoot of the aforesaid two simultaneous growth and development factors that have occurred in the last one score and half a decade.

3(b) Both writ petitioners before us are in the business of news, information, entertainment, etc., which is not print media, to put it compendiously and compactly 'visual media'. Both writ petitioners own Television networks with a wide portfolio of several television channels. One of the writ petitioners, i.e., writ petitioner in W.P.No.44126 of 2016, we are informed owns as many as 33 television channels in eight different languages.

3(c) The contents of the programmes which the writ petitioners broadcast are either created by the writ petitioners themselves or procured from third parties with sole and exclusive rights to broadcast the same in their television channels in India and various other territories across the world.

3(d) It is the specific case of the writ petitioners that they operate, broadcast their television channels on the basis of necessary up-link and downlink permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.

3(e) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'TRAI' for brevity), a statutory body created, established and incorporated in and by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (24 of 1997) (hereinafter referred to as 'TRAI Act' for brevity), issued two consultation papers. One consultation paper is dated 10.10.2016 titled 'Consultation on the Draft Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2016'. The other consultation paper is dated 14.10.2016 and is titled 'Consultation Paper on Draft Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2016'.

3(f) The aforesaid two consultation papers were (together) the first step towards bringing about a Tariff Order and certain regulations for fixing tariff and for regulating the industry of the writ petitioners. To be noted, these two consultation papers were (together) the first step in the birth of subordinate legislations that are subject matter of the instant writ petitions.

3(g) Claiming that the two consultation papers would directly affect their rights and inter-alia pleading that TRAI does not have statutory authority/legislative competence to embark upon such an exercise, the two writ petitioners before us filed the aforesaid two writ petitions on 23.12.2016. To be noted, prayers in the two writ petitions were primarily to quash the aforesaid two consultation papers and to mandamus TRAI by forbearing them from in any manner notifying or giving effect to the intended tari