Both the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act and the Competition Act are special statutes but operate within distinct jurisdictions; CCI can address market dominance abuse allegations while TRAI governs compliance with broadcasting regulations.

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.

3. Introduction:

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.

5. Facts:

ADNPL submitted Information to the CCI alleging SIPL's abuse of dominant position and denial of market access to the ADNPL in violation of S.4(2)(a)(ii) and S.4(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