Regulatory Practice

The Firm has, over the years, developed its regulatory law practice to assist its clients to navigate the ever-changing legislative landscape of the country and to stay compliant within the regulatory framework which is complex and dynamic. Our lawyers are well equipped to advise clients in effectively dealing with regulatory issues they may face in their day-to-day functioning.

We are particularly well placed to assist clients on strategy from a litigation perspective and represent them before the concerned regulatory Authority, Tribunal or Court. Our lawyers have been instrumental in defending clients in multifaceted disputes and have secured favourable orders protecting their business interests.

Key highlights

The Firm advises and represents Star Group entities, the largest broadcasting network in the country, in the proceedings before the Supreme Court of India, pertaining to the Constitutional validity of Section 11 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and the Regulations/Tariff Orders issued thereunder by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to regulate the pricing regime for the TV channels and the broadcasting industry.

The Firm advises and represents Culver Max Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (formerly, Sony Pictures Networks India) that owns and operates several TV Channels under the brand and style of ‘Sony’ in an appeal filed before the Supreme Court against an order passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). The TDSAT while considering the non-discriminatory mandate under the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection Regulations, 2004 allowed a broadcasting petition filed by Videocon D2h Limited (now amalgamated with Dish Tv India Ltd.) and also passed a direction that private DTH operators are to be treated at par with Prasar Bharati, which owns and operates a free dish service called DD Direct+. This has a direct implication as our client as well as all other private DTH Operators are now faced with a situation where they not only have to pay a fee to Prasar Bharati, under the existing legal regime, to air its channels, but also have to provide the same channel to private players at no-cost, i.e., a double financial burden which will have a grave cascading effect on the entire ecosystem. The case raises several important questions of law which directly impact the entire broadcasting industry and the business/ revenue model followed by it.

The Firm represented the Novi Digital Entertaining Private Ltd., Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF) and Amazon in a batch of Petitions pending before the Supreme Court of India which pertained to the legality of Over the Top (OTT) Regulations for content streaming on online platforms such as Amazon Prime Video, Netflix etc. This case raises an important issue regarding regulation of online platform services.

The Firm is advising and representing Star India Private Limited (that owns and operates several TV Channels under the brand and style of ‘Star’ and its variations, as well as the OTT platform under the brand and style ‘Disney+Hotstar’) in a Broadcasting Petition filed in the TDSAT by All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) which is a federation of inter alia private DTH Operators. An allegation was made that Star India is in violation of Regulation 3(2) of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulation, 2017 which encapsulates the legislative mandate on broadcasters to provide TV channels on a non-discriminatory basis. It was alleged that Star India was charging private DTH Operators for the TV channel ‘Star Sports’ whereas on its OTT platform, it was allowing viewers/customers to view Star Sports free of charge. AIDCF prayed for an interim order to stop the broadcast of the live cricketing events of national importance – ICC Asia Cup 2023 and ICC T20 World Cup 2023 which was successfully defended and TDSAT allowed Star India to continue its broadcast. Further, importantly, it observed that prima facie, that OTT platforms are not TV channels. The final judgement in this matter will be of great significance since it raises the seminal issue of which statute/ authority governs OTT platforms and further will influence the manner in which the digital industry conducts its business operations in India.

The Firm has appeared for the Adani Group, a leading business house, before the Supreme Court in a dispute concerning the interpretation of the ‘Composite Scheme’ and the jurisdiction of the Central Commission under Section 79(1)(b) of the Electricity Act 2003, which led to the landmark decision of the Apex Court in Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2017) 14 SCC 80.

The Firm represents DLF Utilities Ltd., a DLF Group company, before the Supreme Court challenging an erroneous decision of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi (APTEL) on the issue of the levy of ‘cross subsidy surcharge’. The matter raises an important question relating to electricity law which can have widespread ramifications.

The Firm represents Adani Total Gas Limited (ATGL) before the APTEL in a challenge to the authorization granted by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board to Indraprastha Gas Limited to lay, build, operate, and expand the city gas distribution network in the geographical area of NOIDA and the simultaneous rejection of ATGL’s application for grant of such authorisation to itself.

The Firm represents DLF Home Developers Ltd. against the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (AERC) before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi (APTEL) on the issue of refund of excess amounts paid towards processing fee of its tariff petitions in accordance with the AERC Regulations.

The Firm represents Tata Motors Ltd. in a batch matter before the Supreme Court where the essential question which arises is whether the Competition Commission of India could have passed a final order in the absence of any judicial member and in violation of the fundamental judicial principle that ‘those who hear, must decide’.

The Firm represented Star India Pvt. Ltd. (“Star India”) in a dispute in which Asianet Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd. had approached the Competition Commission of India (CCI) seeking an inquiry against the business affairs of Star India alleging that it has abused its dominant position by offering discriminatory discounts to various Multi-System Operators. In a writ petition filed on behalf of Star India before the Kerala High Court inter-alia on the ground that broadcasting agreements are within the domain of TRAI and TDSAT, the Firm successfully obtained a stay on the order of the CCI initiating an investigation and parties were directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the CCI to decide the question of jurisdiction. However, Disney (erstwhile Star) has challenged this order by way of an appeal before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and the matter is sub-judice.

The Firm has been advising and appearing for PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and its network of audit firms before the Supreme Court of India in the proceedings pertaining to the alleged violations of the Code of Professional Conduct under the Chartered Accountants Act 1949 by their domestic and multi-national chartered accountancy firms.