SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JUSTICE, J
Asianet Digital Network Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Star India Private Limited – Respondent
WP(C) 29766/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Maninder Singh (Sr), Mr Jaiju Babu (Sr), Mr Santhosh Mathew (Sr), Ms Sneha Jain, Mr Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Mr Prabhas Bajaj
For the Respondents: Mr N Venkataraman, Mr Jaishankar V Nair, Mr Ritin Rai (Sr), Mr Avinash Amarnath, Mr Tarun Donadi, Mr Uday Bali, Mr Naman Golechha, Mr.Dayaar Singla, Mr Saji Varghese T G

The CCI has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, while TRAI addresses compliance with telecommunications regulations, ensuring both regulators operate effectively without conflict.

Headnote:(A) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 - Competition Act, 2002 - Jurisdictional conflict - The writ petitions involve determining the jurisdiction between TRAI and CCI regarding complaints of abuse of dominant position and non-compliance with regulations. The CCI found prima facie violations of Sections 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act. (Paras 3, 6, 46)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court ruled that both TRAI and CCI are special statutes in their respective fields. The CCI has the jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misuse of dominant position, while TRAI addresses regulatory compliance issues. (Paras 51, 52)

(C) Regulatory framework - The court emphasized the importance of fair competition and the need for both regulators to operate without conflict. The CCI is empowered to examine allegations of anti-competitive practices. (Paras 50, 54)

Facts of the case:
The ADNPL alleged that SIPL abused its dominant position by offering discriminatory discounts to a competitor, KCCL, violating the Competition Act. The CCI directed an investigation into these claims. (Paras 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the CCI's jurisdiction to examine the allegations and dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the CCI to proceed with its investigation. (Paras 55)

Issues: The main issues revolved around the jurisdiction of TRAI versus CCI in handling allegations of anti-competitive practices and regulatory compliance. (Paras 46, 54)

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the CCI has jurisdiction over anti-competitive practices, while TRAI addresses regulatory compliance, establishing a framework for both regulators to operate effectively. (Paras 52, 54)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed, allowing CCI to continue its investigation. (Para 55)

Table of Content
1. analysis of jurisdictional issues between trai and cci. (Para 54)
2. conclusion of the judgment. (Para 55)

2. Heard Mr Maninder Singh (Sr), Mr Jaiju Babu (Sr), Mr Santhosh Mathew (Sr), Ms Sneha Jain, Mr Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Mr Prabhas Bajaj, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr Jaishankar V Nair, learned Central Government Counsel of Competition Commission of India and Mr Ritin Rai (Sr), Mr Avinash Amarnath, Mr Tarun Donadi, Mr Uday Bali, Mr Naman Golechha, Mr.Dayaar Singla, Mr Saji Varghese T G learned Counsel for the respondents.

Introduction

3. The alleged conflict between the scope and jurisdiction of the authorities under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act 1997 and the Competition Commission of India (CCI), a statutory authority constituted under the Competition Act 2002 , is involved in the present writ petitions. The issue is which authority, i.e., TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)/ TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) or the Competition Commission of India (CCI), would have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint filed by the respondent, i.e., Asianet Digital Network Private Limited (ADNPL) (a wholly owned subsidiary of Asianet Satellite Communications Limited)/ Informant.

4. There are mainly three parties which are relevant to the present writ petitions:

(a) Star India Private Limited (SIPL) – Broadcaster of Satellite- Based TV Channels

(b) Asianet Digital Network Private Limited (ADNPL/Informant) – A Multi-System Operator (MSO) engaged in the business of providing TV services. It receives broadcasting signals from SIPL for monetary consideration and distributes the channels of SIPL to its customers in pursuance of the agreements entered into between the parties.

(c) Kerala Communicators Cable Limited (KCCL) – Another MSO and a competitor of ADNPL, having similar arrangements with the SIPL.

Facts

5. ADNPL submitted Information to the CCI alleging SIPL’s abuse of dominant position and denial of market access to the ADNPL in violation of Section 4 (2)(a)(ii) and (2)(c) of the Competition Act 2002 by entering into sham marketing agreements with KCCL. TRAI formulated and introduced the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations 2017 (for short, ‘Interconnection Regulations 2017’) and Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order 2017 (Collectively, New Regulatory Framework), under which the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for each pay channel was fixed. The TRAI had a total discount of 35% of the MRP payable to distributors (split as 15% towards discount and 20% towards distribution fee). Under the TRAI regulatory framework, broadcasters are to treat distributors non-discriminatorily and offer discounts on fair and transparent terms to ensure a level playing field.

5.1 The Information alleges that SIPL offered KCCL discounts up to 50% (instead of 15% as prescribed by the Interconnection Regulation 2017). SIPL achieved this by entering into marketing and advertising agreements with KCCL, offering benefits in the form of discounts. Marketing agreements were entered into between the SIPL and the KCCL purporting to advertise the petitioner’s channel ‘Asianet’, which already enjoys huge popularity in Kerala, having four times more viewership than its nearest competing channel. The agreement is only a sham, as these advertisements are being featured by the KCCL on a ‘Test’ channel at the end of its channel list, which merely shows these advertisements on a 24*7 basis without any real viewership. The SIPL, therefore, has violated Section 4 (2)(a)(ii) and (2)(c) of the Competition Act for offering discriminatory discounts, denying market access to ADNPL, and providing unfair advantage to KCCL.

5.2 ADNPL, which is an MSO, predominantly provides digital TV services in Keral

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top