The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed JioStar India Pvt Ltd to approach the Delhi High Court with its plea challenging parts of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's (Trai) regulatory framework on television channel pricing. According to reports from PTI, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi to move the high court with its plea and disposed of the transfer petition filed by JioStar. The broadcaster had moved the top court through law firm Karanjawala and Co.
Rohatgi argued that Trai's regulations and tariff orders were 'intrinsically linked and interconnected' even though they stem from different sources of power. As reported by PTI, he drew a distinction between the two, stating that regulations constitute delegated legislation and can only be challenged before a high court, while tariff orders are administrative in nature and fall within the jurisdiction of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). He cited the definition of 'subscriber' under the framework, arguing that regulations treated a luxury hotel with hundreds of television sets at par with a single-bedroom residential household for pricing purposes. The hearing also focused on whether the Delhi High Court had correctly interpreted the broadcaster's stand that its petitions required amendment, rather than on the merits of the long-running challenge. Rohatgi emphasized that "A tariff order and a regulation were issued simultaneously. One was in the exercise of legislative power and the other in the exercise of administrative power," as reported by PTI.
During the hearing, Rohatgi also questioned the regulatory framework's definition of a "subscriber," arguing that it failed to distinguish between commercial establishments and ordinary households. Referring to hotels, he contended that the current pricing structure treated premium commercial properties and residential consumers alike despite their vastly different use of television services. "We say that if a hotel is charging ₹50,000 per room, there has to be a distinction between commercial exploitation of a signal and a residential household. You cannot have the same tariff. It is like comparing apples with oranges," he said, as reported by PTI. This argument represents a significant challenge to the regulatory approach that treats all subscribers equally regardless of their commercial or residential status.
The ongoing litigation has been complicated by a ₹2 lakh costs order imposed by the Delhi High Court on April 9, 2026, following an oral assurance by counsel that "appropriate corrective measures" would be taken by amending the prayer clause. According to The Hindu BusinessLine, the High Court had observed that both parties agreed the maintainability of the petitions was in question in the absence of consequential relief, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India. The order directed the broadcaster to deposit ₹50,000 each to the NDBA Members Welfare Fund and the CDCBA Members Welfare Fund, and the remaining ₹1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Bar Association's costs account within four weeks. Most recently, on May 14, 2026, the High Court granted what it termed a final adjournment after the broadcaster informed the court that it had challenged the costs order before the Supreme Court. The High Court postponed the hearing until August 27, 2026 while allowing certain intervenors to be deleted from the proceedings. Rohatgi repeatedly questioned the costs order, asking "Why costs?" and stating that the order indicated the court had already formed an opinion that the petitions would otherwise be rejected.
The bench was hearing two pleas concerning the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's (Trai) regulatory regime, including tariff orders, maximum retail price (MRP) caps and discount structures governing cable and DTH distribution. As reported by PTI, the CJI suggested that it would be better if JioStar goes back to the Delhi High Court, stating that in light of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the interim order, the broadcaster should move an application before the high court stating that it does not wish to amend its petition. Senior advocate Gopal Jain also appeared for JioStar during the proceedings. Following the court's observations, Rohatgi agreed to withdraw the transfer petition as well as the present proceedings before the apex court and seek clarification before the High Court. The Supreme Court indicated that if the High Court eventually ruled against the broadcaster, it would remain free to pursue its remedies before the Supreme Court thereafter. JioStar had filed petitions before the Delhi High Court in 2014 and 2015 challenging both the regulations and the tariff orders, with those petitions remaining pending due to similar issues arising from TDSAT proceedings already under consideration before the Supreme Court.
