AIDCF vs TRAI: Hearing in Kerala HC to continue on Thursday as broadcasters enter

New Delhi: After hearing the petition filed by the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) against NTO 3.0 for three days in a row, the Kerala High Court Wednesday posted the matter for the next hearing on Thursday.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) argued the authority’s position in the matter for about an hour before Justice Shaji P Chaly.

Also read: Star, Zee, Sony channels disappear from cable TV? Who is behind this?

Taking the court through the developments in the previous round of litigation when the SLP had been filed last year in the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of regulator TRAI said that the petitioners are putting the blame on TRAI but it's they who had asked us to adjourn.

“We asked all stakeholders. But across the board, every stakeholder felt that 2020 Regulations had become unworkable. And they asked for fresh consideration. That's how the SLP was withdrawn,” Dwivedi said.

Also read: AIDCF weakens as 4 more cable operators leave fight against broadcasters

AIDCF has themselves already declared that 2020 framework is unworkable but now they are asking before this court for it to be restored, he added.

Opposition any interim stay on NTO 3.0, Dwivedi said that the consequence of granting stay would mean 2020 regulation will become operative, which all stakeholders had agreed is not workable.

Also read: Reality check of AIDCF's claim of cable TV blackout in 5 crore homes

The court did not grant any stay on the NTO 3.0.

Justice Chaly said that since the matter has been argued in detail, I was thinking it can be disposed finally. 

“I will ask the petitioners also about this,” Justice Chaly said.

Towards the end, the advocates of Star India, Zee TV and Sony intervened and pressed Justice Chaly for hearing them on Thursday.

Appearing for Star India, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi told Justice Chaly that he would require half an hour time to present his case.

He submitted that his disconnection notice had been impugned without making him a party.