SLJ FIBER NETWORKS PVT LTD vs GEMINI TV DISTRIBUTION SERVICES PVT LTD on 28 September 2026

ORDER

. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Anup Narula appearing for petitioner at length. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the Telecom munication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection ( Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 ( for short, "the Regulations, 2017") enacted under section 36 to be read with Section 11 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, the respondent was bound to provide within 60 days of the receipt of written request from the petitioner sig nals of the Television channels. This request from the petitioner was made much earlier point of time that is on 30.01.2026. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this Tribunal to Annexure P/3 to the memo of this petition and it is submitted that all the formalities for getting the signals have been completed from the side of petitioner as pointed out in the Regulations, 2017 as per regulations 10 (6), 10(7). Nonetheless, neither any objection has been raised by the respondent nor any reply has been filed by respondent in the present matter.

. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the approach of the respondent is thoroughly adamant approach. The approach of the respondent is full of discrimination as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that previously also, as observed by this Tribunal in BP 171/2023 between SLJ Fiber Networks Pvt. Ltd. (A.P)

Vs Sun Tv Network Ltd. the approach of the holding Company has been reflected in the order dated 21.08.2023 in BP 171/2023.

3. After issuance of the Bailable Warrant, the holding Company of the respondent had supplied the signals for the channels demanded by the petitioner in pursuance of the Regulations, 2017.

. Similar is the approach of the present respondent which is a subsidiary of Sun Tv Network Ltd. Hence, the approach is also similar like a holding Company and, therefore, similar treatment should be given to the present respondent.

. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Tribunal to various provisions of the Regulations, 2017 including regulations, 3(1), 3(2), 10(6), 10(7) and 10(8)

etc. to be read with Annexure P/3 and other Annexures annexed with the memo of this petition. On the basis of the aforesaid provision of laws, it is submitted that let a mandatory direction be given to the respondent.

. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is misusing their bargaining power granted in the license agreement by Union of India to the respondent which is popularly known as Uplinking and Downlinki ng permission granted by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Union of India.

. Learned counsel for respondent is, as usual like earlier occasions, seeking time to get instructions.

. We have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner at length and perused the provisions of the Regulations, 2017. For the ready reference, regulations, 3(2) of the Regulations, 2017 reads as under:

"General obligations of broadcasters . (1) No broadcaster shall engage in any practice or activity or enter into any understanding or arrangement including exclusive contracts with any distributor of television channels that prevents any other distributor of television channels from obtaining signals of television channel of such broadcaster for distribution.

Every

broadcaster shall , within sixty days of receipt of written request from a distributor of television channels for obtaining signals of television channel or within thirty days of signing of interconnection agreement with the distributor, as the case may be, provide, on non-discriminatory basis, the signals of television channel to the distributor or convey the reasons in writing for rejection of the request if the signals of television channel are denied to such distributor:

Provided that imposition of any term or condition by the broadcaster, which is unreasonable, shall be deemed to constitute a denial of request:

Provided further that this sub-regulation shall not apply to a distributor of television channels, who requests signals of a particular television channel from a broadcaster while at the same time demands carriage fee for distribution of that television channel or who is in default of payment to the broadcaster and continues to be in such default. "

(Emphasis supplied)

9. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Regulations, 2017, it was a le g al obligation of the respondent to provide the signals of the television channels to the distributor (present petitioner) within 60 days from the receipt of written request from the distributor of Television channels (present petitioner).

10. The written request has already been made by the petitioner on 13.01.2026 which is annexed as Annexure P/3.

. For the ready reference paragraph no.9 of the memo of this Petition reads as under:

"That in order to obtain fresh signals of the Respondent's TV channels, the petitioner made a valid and a proper request to the Respondent vide its email dated 13.01.2026, as contemplated in Clause 3.2 of the extant Interconnect Regulations. It is submitted that the Petitioner vide the aforesaid email, duly informed the Respondent that it has a valid MSO licence in its favour and supplied the Audit Report of its system (SMS & CAS). Accordingly, the Petitioner requested the respondent to review the said Audit Report and process the request of the Petitioner for fresh TV signals. Copy of the email dated 13.01.2026 sent by the Petitioner is annexed and marked herewith as ANNEXURE-P/3 ."

12. The aforesaid averments has not been controverted at all by the respondent. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying the aforesaid facts.

13. Looking to the paragraph no. 15 of the memo of the this petition, it appears that petitioner has complied with the provisions of regulation 10(6) and other provisions of the Regulations, 2017.

.

Regulation, 10(8) of the Regulations,2017

reads as under:

" Every broadcaster of pay channel, within thirty days of receipt of written request from a distributor of television channels, shall enter into a written interconnection agreement with the distributor of television channels for providing signals of its pay channel in accordance with the terms and conditions of the reference interconnection offer published by the broadcaster.

Provided that the ‘broadcaster’s share of maximum retail price’ payable by a distributor of television channels under the interconnection agreement shall be calculated on the basis of the maximum retail price of pay channel or bouquet, the distribution fee and the discounts agreed in the interconnection agreement:

Provided further that the period of the interconnection agreement in no case shall be less than one year from the date of commencement of the agreement:

Provided also that in case more than one interconnection agreement are entered into with a distributor in respect of television channel or bouquet of pay channels, each subsequent interconnection agreement shall contain the details of the earlier agreements in force with that distributor for such channel or bouquet, as the case may be.

Explanation: For the removal of doubt, it is clarified that on receipt of a written request from a distributor by a broadcaster for obtaining signals of pay channels, the written interconnection agreement, between the broadcaster and the distributor, shall be entered into within thirty days of receipt of such request, and, the broadcaster shall provide signals of its pay channels, within thirty days from the date of signing of written interconnection agreement, to the distributor of television channels. ''

( Emphasis supplied )

. The respondent has also not complied with regulation, 10(8) of the Regulations, 2017 d espite the fact that petitioner has sent RIO on of 17.07.2026 which is duly singed by the present petitioner. Thus, it appears that the respondent is thoroughly non-cooperative.

. It ought to be kept in mind by the Union of India while renewing the licence of the respondent and Uplinking and Downlinking permission this type of behavior should be kept in mind and proper action should be initiated by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting , Union of India. The r espondent has never raised any objection for the request of grant of signals of the channels nor the respondent has filed any reply in the present Broadcasting Petition nor the respondent has complied with the provisions of the regulation 10(8).

. In view of these circumstances, we hereby direct the Managing Director of the respondent namely, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Rajaraman S/o Mr. Rajaram , Address: Address - Murasoli Maran Towers, 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600028, Tamil Nadu, India to remain personally present before this Tribunal at 11:00 A.M on 29.09.2026 or before that date he may provide on non-discriminatory basis signals of Television channels to the distributors of the channels (present petitioner).

18. R egistry of this Tribunal shall send copy of this order to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Union of India , for information about the behavior of the respondent.

19. Hence, the matter is adjourned on 29.9.2026.

( JUSTICE D. N. PATEL)CHAIRPERSON

( DR. SANJEEV BANZAL)MEMBER

/AS/