



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A legal dispute between a news broadcasting company, Athena Inc., and the television regulatory body, Television Watchdog, in the country of Heliopolis. The dispute centers around regulation 9 of the television broadcasting regulations, 2008, which places restrictions on the duration of advertisements on television channels. The Supreme Court of Heliopolis has clubbed this case with a special leave petition filed by Television Watchdog against the High Court of Memphis' judgment.
Typology: Schemes and Mind Maps
1 / 6
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
W.P (Civil) No: 47 of 2023 and SLP (Civil) No: 3478 of 2023 In the matter of: Athena Inc. … Petitioner v. Television Watchdog … Respondent
1. Heliopolis is a sovereign republic and one of the largest democracies in the world. In 1990, it adopted a new Constitution, which guaranteed fundamental rights to persons and citizens. Heliopolis is a Union of States with the federal government having power to legislate on broadcast and airways. The Constitution provides for High Courts in every State and a Supreme Court at the national capital of Luxor, both having power to enforce fundamental rights. 2. In 2001 , the then government introduced a series of economic reforms, which led to the rapid growth of television industry and private broadcasting companies. It is germane to note that for these broadcasting companies, advertisements remain to be one of the major sources of revenue given the nature of cable tv subscriptions, especially in cases such as news broadcasting channels, which provide a very nominal subscription fee or even free subscription to millions of viewers. 3. In light of the rapid expansion of private broadcasters, the federal government enacted the Television Broadcasting Regulations Act, 2006 (“Act”). Under section 19 (1) of the Act, Television Watchdog, the Regulator under the Act, is empowered to make regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act. This resulted in the publication of
7. Subsequent to the judgment of the High Court of Memphis, Athena Inc and other news broadcasters increased the duration of advertisements. In this background, Television Watchdog issued directions (Directive No: 1 of 2023) to Athena Inc and other broadcasters to strictly adhere to Regulation 9 in other jurisdictions except State of Memphis wherein the High Court had declared Regulation 9 as unconstitutional. Such a view was adopted by Television Watchdog purportedly on the ground that the judgment rendered by the High Court of Memphis applied only to the State of Memphis. It also highlighted the fact that a similar writ petition was still pending in the High Court of State of Thinis. 8. In view of such a position taken by the Television Watchdog, Athena Inc has preferred a writ petition (W.P. No: 47 of 2023) under Article 32 before the Supreme Court of Heliopolis challenging the validity of Directive No: 1 of 2023 issued by the Television Watchdog. On the other hand, Television Watchdog has preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of High Court of Memphis before the Supreme Court of Heliopolis (SLP No: 3478 of 2023). The Supreme Court issued notices in the respective cases and clubbed them for final hearing. The Television Watchdog has filed a counter affidavit stating that they received multiple representations from the public regarding increase in advertisements in TV channels. As such, it was in public interest that they decided to implement Regulation 9. Rahul Unnikrishnan and Gayatri T, Advocates- Madras High Court Authors of the Moot Proposition
The oral hearings shall take place on 27 th^ May, 2023. In the written submissions and at the hearing in May 2023, the parties shall address the following issues:
1. Whether Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is violative of the provisions of the Constitution and is thus, unconstitutional? 2. Whether the judgment of High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as unconstitutional is confined to the territorial limits of State of Memphis? Or, since Regulation 9 is a federal subject, can the judgment be applied throughout the country of Heliopolis? 3. Whether Telecom Watchdog has the power to regulate duration of advertisements in public interest? NOTE: