The Delhi High Court in the case TV Today Network Limited v. Union of India and Anr observed and has refused to interfere with orders passed by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, whereby TV Today Network, operator, or owner of India Today and Aaj Tak, was directed to run an apology scroll for broadcasting advertisements which are promoting brand names associated with the alcohol produces.
The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case observed while dismissing the plea moved by Network, wherein the court observed that Rule 7(2)(viii) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (and its proviso) permit advertisement of a product that may bear a name also used in connection with prohibited articles.
The court stated that such advertisement is subject to conditions, which were contravened in the instant case.
The court observed that the Network broadcasted two advertisements. Thus, one pertains to ‘100 Pipers Music CDs’ and the other to ‘ll Seasons Club Soda’.
The letter has been issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the Network stating that the advertisements broadcasted by it promoted brand names associated with alcohol produces.
The court observed that when the Network was granted an opportunity of hearing before the Competent Authority, it came up that the Network had no means to verify the advertisement as well as the certificate issued by Central Board of Film Certification, CBFC.
Therefore, the respondent No.1 then issued an advisory providing a mechanism for verification of CBFC certificates.
The court observed that the impugned orders were passed, wherein the court directed CBFC certificate pertaining to the ‘100 Pipers’ advertisement. It was urged with respect to the ‘All Seasons’ broadcast that the brand name is commonly used in connection with products other than liquor.
It was contended also contended before the court that the Network’s channels had acted in good faith, and were not obliged to compare clips provided by the advertiser with the one certified by CBFC prior to running. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the Union of India stated that ‘100 Pipers’ advertisement carried a logo of the liquor brand, in violation of Rule 7(2)(viii) of the 1994 Rules. Thus, with regards to all the All-Seasons’ advertisement, it was urged that the advertisement showed a liquor bottle and as such could not come within the purview of ‘surrogate advertisement’. Besides, the said clip was not CBFC-certified.
The court in the case observed and has held that since the provisions of Rule 7 has not been complied with, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that they had proceeded in good faith which being on the basis of the CBFC certificate which was submitted by the advertiser cannot be accepted as the Rules do not permit the broadcaster to independently ascertain the veracity of the clip that is provided by the advertiser.
The court also observed with regard to the ‘All Seasons’ advertisement that the same was not certified by CBFC. Further, the court observed that the issue was stated to have attained finality in view of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench dealing with the same advertisement in the case New Delhi Television Limited v. Union of India and Anr.
The counsel, Advocates Hrishikesh Baruah, Anurag Mishra, Kumar Kshitij, Radhika Gupta, and Saumitra appeared for petitioner (TV Today Network).
The counsel, CGSC Apoorv Kashyap with Advocates Kirti Dadheech, Akhil Hasija, and Ojaswa Pathak appeared for respondent (Union Of India).
