admin – Page 2 – VikkiChoudhry

A curious case of Inflationary Adjustment conducted by #TRAI #Telecom #Regulatory #Authority in India, for some mysterious reasons, which had only benefited select business entities in India and abroad, with more than Rs.10,000 Crores wrongly collected from #IndianConsumers

Important list of dates and associated events:

On April 30^th 2012 TRAI comes out with DAS interconnect Regulation, keeping the tariff for cable television services under forbearance (Self Control) under this TRAI Regulation No. 09 of 2012.

TRAI DAS Interconnect Regulation DAS 30.04.2012

In February 2014 TRAI approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) Nos. 71-75 of 2014 in CA no. 829-833 of 2009 in the ongoing case of TRAI Vs Set Discovery and Ors, and sought permission of the Hon’ble Court to review the Tariff Order as there are industry demands for the same, as no inflationary hike had been permitted since 2009.The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed this IA based on and submissions made by TRAI and in its order dated 28th February 2014 held as under:

“On going through the averments in these applications, the Appellate Authority is permitted to review the tariff ceiling to make adjustment for inflation and notify the same, in exercise of its powers conferred under section 11(2) of the TRAI Act, 1997”

Thereafter only, without following the due consultation process the TRAI notified THE TELECOMMUNICATION (BROADCASTING AND CABLE) SERVICES (SECOND) TARIFF (ELEVENTH AMENDMENT) ORDER, 2014 on 31st March, 2014. Giving effect to the increase of 27.5 per cent which was allowed in two installments i.e. vide Eleventh Amendment, 15% increase was allowed w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and a second installment of further 12.5% increase was allowed vide Thirteenth Amendment w.e.f. 01.01.2015 vide this Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff Amendment Order 2014 (hereinafter referred to as (TAO) dated 31.12.2014 –

TRAI 11th (TAO) 31.03.2014

TRAI 13th (TAO) 31.12.2014

An Appeal was made in the Hon’ble TDSAT on this arbitrary TAO issued by TRAI dated 31.03.2014 The Appellants inter-alia contended that such increase in tariff is arbitrary and without jurisdiction and affects the entire broadcasting sector, having the cascading effect against the interest of individual TV viewers / consumers. That in view of the arbitrary increase in tariff made by the TRAI, the Hon’ble TDSAT vide its order dated 29.05.2014 directed all the stake-holders to maintain a separate account in regard to the collection on the basis of the Eleventh T.A.O., so that if the said appeal succeeds upon the final adjudication of the increased tariff issue, the individual subscribers making an excess payment in terms of the Eleventh T.A.O. could be entitled to adjust for the succeeding month(s) from the respective LCO’s/MSO’s, the LCO’s be entitled for adjustment from MSO’s and the MSO’s be entitled for adjustment from the broadcasters.

TDSAT Order of 29.05.2014

Thereafter a judgment dated 28.04.2015 was delivered by the Hon’ble TDSAT in this Appeal, with the following observations made, those are reproduced below:

…… The entire increase is arbitrary as it is on an ad-hoc and interim fixation, as such itself arbitrary in the first place. The increase is otherwise also wholly arbitrary and suffers from non-application of mind.

The impugned tariff order has been issued in complete violation of section 11(4) and there is no transparency whatsoever in the process adopted by the TRAI.

Before we conclude, we think that TRAI will be well advised to have a fresh look at the various tariff orders in a holistic manner and come out with a comprehensive tariff order in supersession of all the earlier tariff orders. While doing so, it may consider all the agreements and relevant data available with it. It may consider differentiating between content which is of a monopolistic nature as against that the like of which is shown by other channels also. It may also consider classifying the content into premium and basic tiers. It may identify the major cost components so that increase or decrease in such costs may be suitably factored while working out the inflationary hikes. Increase in costs of such components as may be available in indexes such as WPI, GDP deflator etc. can then be applied. While working out the tariffs, the effort should be to encourage a correct declaration of SLR. While carrying out the exercise, it may take the inputs from various stakeholders and give a reasoned order for accepting or rejecting the same. We want to be amply clear that the above are only some suggestions and TRAI being an expert body may arrive at suitable tariffs independently; it is up to it to consider the above and/or any other factors…..

Final Order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Hon’ble TDSAT

This final order dated 28.04.2015 was challenged by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and other Pay TV broadcasters before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No(s). 5159 – 5164 of 2014, 5277-5282 of 2015, 5289-5294 of 2015, 5352-5357 of 2015 and 5283-5288 of 2015 wherein the Appellants were made the Respondents. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after hearing all the parties, refused to interfere with the order of remand dated 28.04.2015 passed by this Hon’ble TDSAT in Appeal no. 1(C) to 6(C) of 2014 and directed the TRAI to review the tariff orders in a holistic manner and come out with a comprehensive tariff order in supersession of all the earlier tariff order. The Hon’ble Supreme court also directed the Respondents therein to not to insist for the refund of the amount collected by the pay TV broadcasters till the matter is finally adjudicated and dismissed the said appeals filed by various pay TV broadcasters and IBF vide order dated 04.08.2015.

Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement / Order dated 04.08.2015

That after considering various factors regarding the fixation of tariff and in the light of the directions contained in the final order dated 28.04.2015 passed by this Hon’ble TDSAT and the order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the TRAI came to the conclusion that no inflationary increase is required and published the said decision vide Press Release No. 28/2016 dated 09.05.2016.

TRAI Press Release No 28 of 2016 dated 09.05.2016

As there is a mention of GDP Deflator and refers to an Industry representation, in this TRAI Press Release No.28 of 2016 issued by TRAI on 09.05.2016 “This was done as per industry demand as no inflationary hike had been permitted since 2009.” , basis which the Eleventh and Thirteenth T.A.O. were notified. Hence a detailed representation was sent, addressed to the Chairperson of TRAI Mr. Ram Sewak Sharma with the following prayers made :

PRAYERS

We claim following reliefs that TRAI must:-

withdraw the 2^nd amendment dated 01.12.2004, 3^rd amendment dated 29.11.2005, 8^th amendment dated 4.10.2007 and 9^th amendment dated 26.12.2008 and
Roll back the price ante 26.12.2003 by reducing the same by 80% in the interim while progressing with the cost based tariff. (stake holders reasonably expect that when cost has gone down then price as on 26.12.2003 be reduced by 80% in the interim)
Provide copy of GDP Deflator referred in Press Note No : 28 of 2016
Provide copy of Industry Representation based on which 11^th and 13^th Amendment to Second Tariff Order was notified
Notify the cost based tariff at the earliest

Copy of Detailed Representation made to CP TRAI dated 12.08.2016

As there was no response / reply received on this detailed representation made to CP TRAI ” Chairperson, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India” even though after repeated reminders sent, eventually a RTI request was made to CPIO TRAI and the following information was sought from the CPIO TRAI :

In case the expert body TRAI have made an indicative or experimental GDP deflator please provide details of the same, or was it the same GDP deflator as made by Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (India). As for the purpose of Telecommunication services and the same must be revealed with complete details.
We request you that the representation made by the Industry be revealed to us. In case the industry is also permitted to make oral demand which can be easily complied with by TRAI, please provide all the details.

“The Ld. Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) refused to provide information by referring to irrelevant, incomplete information such as the copy of GDP Deflator prepared by the expert body TRAI the data for analysis of GDP Deflator was taken from website of World Bank, which is available in public domain”

Thereafter a RTI appeal was made to the RTI Appellant Authority in TRAI but the requested information was not provided for some mysterious / unknown reasons. Hence a second appeal was eventually made to the “CIC” Central Information Commission ” on 12.05.2017 on the grounds that information should be provided.
This said complaint / appeal made to CIC finally came up for the hearing on 07.03.2018 and upon hearing the Appellant and Respondent (TRAI) an order was passed

Central Information Commission order dated 07.03.2018

This said order passed by CIC was not complied to by TRAI hence a complaint was made on 24.03.2018

Complaint Dated 24.03.2018 made to CIC

Only thereafter CPIO TRAI made a compliance to this order passed by CIC vide its compliance made on 17.04.2018

TRAI compliance to CIC order dated 17.04.2018

Pertinent to mention here , that no where in this only ” Industry Representation” made by IBF to TRAI ” it says that the tariff for television services be increased as no inflationary hike had been permitted since 2009″ moreover it only states therein to keep the tariff for cable television services under forbearance (Self Control) ” (as it was already under forbearance since 2012) and TRAI should conduct a comprehensive tariff consultation exercise.

This arbitrary tariff hike made by TRAI vide its TAO issued on 31.03.2014, have resulted in an unjust enrichment to few pay TV broadcaster (Members of IBF) and their directly and indirectly aligned DPOs (Distribution Platform Operators) where more than Rs. 10,000 Crores have been wrongly collected from the consumers of television services and the same have still not been adjusted / refunded to the Cable TV and DTH consumers/ subscribers in the country.

Moreover, very interestingly when representations were made to this regulatory authority TRAI to take an appropriate action for facilitating adjustment or refund of this huge an amount, wrongly been collected from the Consumers / Subscribers of television services in the country, on account of these arbitrary TAO s issued without any application of mind, in a hurry when the entire nation was undergoing its 16^th Lok Sabha general elections and an election commission code of conduct was already in place w.e.f 14.02.2014.

This is the response of the Regulator, TRAI received on various representations made to them :

TRAI reply received dated 13.07.2016 on various Representations made

The TRAI vide its this letters dated 13.7.2016 has replied that “In the above TDSAT order of 29.05.2014, the Hon’ble TDSAT has not given any direction to TRAI. Therefore TRAI has nothing to say in this regard. In view of the above, you are free to approach the appropriate forum in this regard.

Broadcasting is a natural monopoly and governed by the principles of public utility

The airwaves or frequencies are a public property. Their use has to be controlled and regulated by a public authority in the interests of the public and to prevent the invasion of their rights. Since the electronic media involves the use of the airwaves, this factor creates an in-built restriction on its use as in the case of any other public property.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also rightly held that the right to impart and receive information is a species of the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution. A citizen has a fundamental right to use the best means of imparting and receiving information and as such to have an access to telecasting for the purpose. However, this right to have an access to telecasting has limitations on account of the use of the public property

Whereas it’s a settled law that broadcasting is a natural monopoly and governed by the principles of public utility, which deal with the public at large under the license from Government to use the airwaves in fair manner

There are relevant laws enacted to protect interest of citizen’s such as

The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act enacted in 2007. That aims to provide access to the largest number of listeners and viewers, on a free to air basis, of sporting events, which are of national importance through mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati, the public broadcaster”

This is nothing but the adoption of well-established global regulation and practices adopted by all civilized nations, to protect the interest of its citizen’s with respect to, cultural rights, sporting events, etc. of national or international importance and use of airwaves in public good.

Citizens also have to collectively ensure compliances and periodically watch, that these laws enacted in their interest are not being violated or ignored for some vested interest.

My representation dated 28.02.2018 in #PublicInterest addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports : –

Reference: News article published in various News publications in the first week of December 2017 “IPL 2018: STAR India may be asked to share live cricket feed with Doordarshan”…..The I&B ministry is working on a proposal to make IPL available on Doordarshan and has asked the sports ministry to weigh in on the matter….

VC Letter to Secretary MIB MYAS copy to Prasar Bharati 28.02.2018

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS OF END-CONSUMERS OF TELEVISION SERVICES (THE PUBLIC AT LARGE) AND THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRIBUTION PLATFORM OPERATORS (DPO)s i.e. (distributor of television channels” or “distributor” means any DTH operator, multi-system operator, HITS operator or an IPTV operator;) on the proposed amendment of The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharti) Act, 2007.

Comments and Suggestions on Sports Act 2007 Proposed Ammendment by VC

What actually happened in #PNBScam? Let’s start from the concept and #Fix It, #ASAP!

First, The Concept

let’s first understand how things work.

Some importer, let’s calls him Nirav Modi or NM, wants to import pearls or diamonds and then sell them. The purchase requires money, so NM approaches a bank, say Punjab National Bank (PNB).

PNB says look, I’ll give you a loan but it will be like at 10% Interest

NM thinks hard and says, no, that’s too much. Wait, why don’t I take a foreign currency loan instead, after all I’m buying in dollars? Much lower interest rates no? I can get at LIBOR+2% and LIBOR is like 1.5% so I’ll have the money at 3.5%!

But who will give NM a foreign currency loan? A bank abroad? They don’t know NM. They don’t have any history of NM, so why will they give him money?

SO NM goes to PNB and says, boss, you’re my banker, so please help some foreign bank give me some money to buy diamonds. Say that you will guarantee my loan by giving me a “Letter of Undertaking” (LOU).

PNB now should be saying look, if you want me to give Rs. 100 cr. guarantee, you give me stuff worth 110 cr. at least. As collateral.

But PNB, for some strange reason, doesn’t ask for collateral. More on that later.

So now the foreign bank is ready to lend NM the money. Because PNB will guarantee it. And the foreign bank trusts PNB. Why does it trust PNB?

Because PNB sends a message on SWIFT – the banking message service – that PNB guarantees Rs. 100 cr. of money for 180 days for Mr. NM at an interest rate of, say, LIBOR + 2%. It’s like a message – written in stone, effectively – that says PNB will pay if NM doesn’t pay.

In fact the foreign bank trusts only PNB. So it gives the money to PNBs account with it, called by PNB as a “Nostro” – the account that PNB maintains with banks abroad, usually in the currency of that country, where the other bank will send money meant for PNB customers.

PNB’s Nostro account gets the money.

PNB then gives NM the money from the Nostro account, usually paid off to whoever NM is buying his diamonds from. This payment is to someone outside India usually, to fund a purchase of diamonds or whatever.

Note this carefully: The other bank gives money to PNB’s Nostro account. Not to NM. They don’t care about NM. They only know that PNB has given a guarantee on the SWIFT channel.
Note: The other bank is nowadays mostly the foreign branches of Indian banks. Because the foreign banks have realized something sinister – that PNB’s guarantee is a strange beast that isn’t backed with much, but we’ll come to that

The foreign bank couldn’t care less about whether NM was buying diamonds or bitcoin – to them, PNB would pay back even if NM’s bitcoin wallet got stolen.

Why does PNB give a guarantee? Fees. Each year, a bank may charge upto 2% to give the LoU.

So What Happens When It’s Time To Pay Back?

NM has to get the pearls in India, sell them, receive the money and pay PNB. On the due date written on the LoU. Then PNB will pay back the foreign bank saying okay, we got the customer’s money so we’re giving it back to you. With interest etc.

That’s what is supposed to happen. But in reality, things went a little berserk, it seems

The Reality: A Bit of a Ponzi

NM might not pay back at all. NM might use the money to speculate in the markets. Or do something else.

What if NM in the above example simply didn’t have the money to pay back? Instead, he asks a PNB official to open ANOTHER LoU. For the amount owed plus interest. So if we had the first LoU at $10 million the second one is $11 million to cover the interest on the first.

The money from the second LoU is used to repay the first. It’s just rolling over of credit. Over and over. Standard definition of a ponzi scheme.

This can easily balloon into a larger amount, so large that it’s too much. In effect many such arrangements have turned into semi-ponzi schemes, with one LoU being opened to repay another and so on.

Which is what is likely to have happened. We don’t know the details, but it looks like:

Nirav Modi took loans from foreign branches of Indian banks through an LoU issued by PNB This was done through a SWIFT based LoU issued through a rogue employee (or many of them) at PNB

The orders never showed up in the core banking system for monitoring

LoUs were rolled over all the way since 2011, and possibly increased over time too.

The rogue official retired in 2017, and the replacement refused to roll over the LoU which came due in Jan 2018 because he couldn’t find the past transactions in the system

No rollover means a default, since there was no money to pay. So PNB quickly files an FIR saying oh God !! we have lost 280 cr. on the Jan 17 LoUs

Then someone try to, “realise, is there more of these not-in-system LoUs? check !

Then someone checked. Oh God !. 11,400 crores.

That’s a lot of crores. Everyone in the PNB bank panicked.

Why couldn’t Nirav Modi just pay it back? He must have the original money ?

Because if it was ever intended to be paid back, the rollovers wouldn’t have been required. At some point, things got so out of hand that rollovers were required in order to stay current.

Typically this would not be a problem. If PNB had done things right, they would have had collateral worth the amount of guarantee, and they would have sold that collateral and paid the foreign bank.

But, and here’s the real issue : PNB didn’t have any collateral.

Why did PNB give a guarantee without collateral?

If you and I go for a loan to a bank, they’ll ask us for income proof, and collateral. Only small tiny personal loans and credit card loans come backed without collateral. For something of the order of 11,000 cr.you would think they would ask for highly validated collateral.

Especially after the episode with #VijayMallya where loans to #Kingfisher were given on nearly no collateral (though even there they had a house and some promoter shares pledged)

Why did PNB give this guarantee then? It’s typical – banks give guarantees for more the amount you give as collateral. Because business relationships etc. And then: Because nearly every bank is doing it.

The loan was not a “fund based limit”. In a fund based limit like a term loan, the bank pays out money. In non-fund-based limits, the bank will only pay if someone else defaults or an event happens – like a Bank Guarantee or an LC or an LoU.

Meaning, PNB assumed that the foreign bank was giving a loan directly to Nirav Modi and that PNB needed to pay only in case Nirav Modi defaulted. So in the eyes of PNB it was always an “non-fund-based” loan.

But this is how a significant part of import financing works. They all rollover credit, and they all use LoUs for much higher than they can offer as collateral. From my sources, the scale is huge. For every Rs. 100 that a bank has collateral, they will easily provide LOUs for upto 6x the amount. This is a real problem – that most public sector banks do not keep much collateral against non-fund-based limits given to importing customers.

So even if a bank has collateral, it’s nowhere near enough. And then, such unfunded liabilities are not even reported to RBI!

Basel Reporting: No Disclosure

PNB has “unfunded” exposure of 11,000 cr. they say. But they don’t even reveal it in their latest Basel III disclosure:

The funded exposure to “Gems and Jewellery” is shown at 1860 cr. Unfunded to the same sector: 842 cr.

This doesn’t even add up. So, in effect, PNB didn’t reveal that it was funding massive quantities of “unfunded, contingent exposure”. They will of course pretend that they didn’t know, because the transactions weren’t in the core banking system.

Did Employees Hide it? Was PNB Responsible or was it a fraud?

Can employees be responsible? Could they have hidden the credit and the rolling over of LoUs? But honestly, how does a 11,000 cr. credit pass muster without top management realizing it?

Think of it – your nostro account with these other banks keeps getting big credits that add up to 11,000 cr. Will you not reconcile it in the accounting? The “why is this money even here?” question should have been asked by someone who audits accounts, one thinks?

And the SWIFT messages. It’s a specific kind of message. Why wouldn’t PNB audit the SWIFT trail? Reconcile it with the core banking system? How many more such skeletons will tumble if they do?

Their excuses are :

Data wasn’t entered into the core banking system. (Of course, otherwise you would have had to report it)

LOUs weren’t authorized. ( Hard to believe, because the amounts are very large. Surely someone on the top would know?)

The SWIFT system was illegally used. (Again, hard to believe that a bank like PNB would not audit its SWIFT messages regularly. Or its auditors. Or RBI.)

On the face of it, it looks like the ex-employee is being used as a scapegoat. It’s likely that a lot of people were in on this thing. And that it generated massive, fat fees for PNB all these years.

Fees wise: Imagine 11,000 cr. worth LoUs being renewed each year – that’s upto Rs. 200 cr. in fees that was all hitting PNB’s top line. You could bribe an employee to maybe give you a small increase – say 10-20 cr. but when you hit numbers like 11,000 cr. this is surely something the top management would know.

What’s the Scale of this scam?

While PNB reported it as a 11,000 cr. scam, they filed an FIR with the CBI for only Rs. 280 cr. This has probably expanded since then but even if the total outstanding is as much as that, there’s a good chance that the actual loss amount will be lesser.

All of it will be borne by PNB right now. Whether someone abused their SWIFT usage is not relevant, if PNB’s SWIFT message said they will pay, they have to pay if there is a default.

But think about the fallout. The problem was that some liabilities were not in the system. There could be more such LoUs. From the same branch or others. Other banks could have such LoUs too. It’s trivial to start looking – and we know that Nirav Modi will not be an isolated case.

Also, the issue was that the limits had no collateral behind them. If all banks are told to verify their non-fund-based limits and demand collateral against them (say at least 25%) then the scale would be absolutely massive. It’s not like this is happening only with #NiravModi or #MehulChoksi. A very large number of importers of commodities have been doing this, and rotating credit. A change in regulation here can change the game dramatically for every other bank (and import account) in the existing system.

The simple point: this particular transaction will result in a lower loss than 11,000 cr. for PNB. Because of recoveries and such. But if RBI asks all banks to pull up collateral on such lending and stop such practices, the scale is many times larger.

What about the PNB stock?

It’s fallen 17%. But note that it already has 60,000 cr. of gross NPAs. Another 11,000 cr. will hurt it but not kill it. It won’t die – the government will take it over. Shareholders might suffer, but come on as a shareholder of a public sector bank you’re used to suffering.

The problem really is: There is never just one cockroach. When you go deeper, you are likely to find more dirty, dark secrets, and none of them will be any good.

PNB is going to be hurt for a while, but so are others who will find their books similarly tarnished once they investigate.

Will This Bring The Market Down?

Have you been living under a rock? Nothing will ever bring the market down, nowadays. But the one thing that does bring markets down is the outflow of liquidity. What if so much of the #Ponzi credit – essentially money that was rolled over very month – is being invested directly, or indirectly, into stocks? If RBI tightens up, liquidity will pull money out of stocks, and that will hurt.

Of course, this hurts the fiscal deficit since PNB has to be rescued. So bond yields are up to 7.6% and therefore we’d avoid any long term funds or bonds. Short term it will have to be.

But overall, we wouldn’t worry too much. Just react, don’t predict. What would you do if stocks fell? Better to answer that than to say they will, or they will not. (And no, not buying PNB)

Our View: Fix it.

This is the Indian public sector banking system. Fix it.
How can you have transactions on SWIFT outside CBS? Fix it.
Why would you not reconcile the nostro accounts? Suspend the auditors. Fire top management. Fix it.

Closing the door behind #NiravModi and associates, who have already left the country, is probably useless. If you find fraud, invoke their personal guarantees, and file cases to attach their personal properties. After that, file in NCLT to make these companies insolvent. Take the hit, and try to recover.

Find out more such instances where collateral cover is too low. Find out if the LoUs or LCs are just getting rolled over or is the customer actually paying back through the Indian current account. And if not, demand more collateral to avoid further spread of the #Ponzi. But this is quite unlikely to happen because the banking system is going to take massive hits now, and we’re going to have to deal with the fallout of really horrible systems. It’s amazing that our banks have been this lax, but they have been allowed to; with no bankers being investigated, the rot inside the banks has been ignored and instead, industrialists have been the target of outrage. It’s time to look at banks as malicious players too, and to fix that rot.

With inputs from @deepakshenoy Founder, Capitalmind @CapitalMind_in.

Every 4-hours,1 Bank Staffer is Held For Fraud

Investigations reveal conman Ravi Choudhry’s abduction of four diamond merchants was superbly planned operation- India Today 15 Oct 1991

This above article published in India Today, Oct, 1991 issue, have mention of #MehulChoksi #GeetanjaliExports and #NiravModi – A Food for Thought

In an organised crime, not necessarily every participant is aware of the consequences of each step of deviation from law of the land. Many times it is slow manuring of the system with a longer selfish motive, wherein slowly and gradually everyone becomes participant

Same issues in banking system are been faced worldwide but to some extent in developed societies, there is instilled fear among #Fraudsters #Scammers and #CorruptOfficials of about 10 year #PrisonTerm and immediate seizure of all assets acquired by the perpetrator’s from ill-gotten money.

Latest on fugitive #NiravModi : –

Nirav Modi arrested in London on India’s extradition request, denied bail

CBI-ED team to leave for UK for Nirav Modi extradition hearing

UK Court Denies Bail To Nirav Modi For Second Time

11 luxury cars owned by Nirav Modi to be auctioned

Meet Nirav’s A-Team that may have helped him pull off Rs 14,000-cr scam

Myth about TDS. Good and Bad TDS in Drinking Water.

What is TDS?

TDS is Total Dissolved Solids. Water dissolves the minerals present in the strata of soil it filers through in the case of ground water and, in the case of surface water, the minerals present in the soil over which it flows (rivers/streams) or over which it stands (lakes, ponds, reservoirs).The dissolved minerals in water are commonly referred to as Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The TDS content of any water is expressed in milligrams /litre (mg/l) or in parts per million (ppm). These units are equivalent.

The minerals are basically compounds (salts) of Calcium(Ca), Magnesium(Mg) and Sodium(Na) What is commonly called as ‘hardness in water’ is due to the compounds/salts of Ca and Mg such as Calcium or Magnesium Chloride, Calcium or Magnesium Sulphate ( CaSo4, MgCl, etc).Some types of dissolved solids are specifically dangerous even in low quantities. This includes arsenic, fluorides and nitrates. There are particular standards for the acceptable amounts of these elements in water and in some cases like fluoride; there is some disagreement as to what constitutes safe levels.

Leaving aside the specific harmful chemicals fluoride and arsenic, drinking water for human beings should contain some level of minerals (TDS), but these levels should not be excessive.

What are the TDS Standards?

India Standards: The standard that applies to India is the BIS 10500- 2012 standard

This standard used the WHO standard as the basis and has been amended subsequently to take into account the fact that over exploitation of ground water which has the largest share of water supplied for human use has deteriorated to such an extent that the crucial parameters such as TDS, hardness, Chlorides, etc usually exceed the desirable levels substantially. Consequently, a higher permissible limit has been specified. Water used for drinking becomes unpalatable when the TDS level is above 500 mg/l, but lack of any better source enables people consuming such water to get used to its taste. The BIS standard applies to the purity level acceptable for human beings to drink. For practically all industrial and some commercial uses, the purity levels required are very much higher and in most cases demand water with virtually no residual dissolved solids at all.

BIS Standard says that the maximum desirable TDS is 500 mg/L and the maximum permissible level in the absence of a better source of water is 2000 mg/L. A related standard is the ‘hardness measured as CaCO3″ where the acceptable limit is 200 mg/L and maximum permissible is 600 mg/L.

WHO Standards:

“Water containing TDS concentrations below 1000 mg/litre is usually acceptable to consumers, although acceptability may vary according to circumstances. However, the presence of high levels of TDS in water may be objectionable to consumers owing to the resulting taste and to excessive scaling in water pipes, heaters, boilers, and household appliances (see also the section on Hardness).

Water with extremely low concentrations of TDS may also be unacceptable to consumers because of its flat, insipid taste; it is also often corrosive to water-supply systems “

Reference: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/tds.pdf

US EPA Standard:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognises broadly two categories of drinking water standards, known as maximum-contaminant-level goal (MCLG) and secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). The MCLG is a health goal set at a concentration at which no adverse health effects are expected to occur and the margins of safety are judged “adequate,” while the SMCL is a non-enforceable guideline that presents no risk to human health. While fixing no limit for MCLG, the EPA has fixed an upper limit of 500 mg/L for SMCL. This limit has been fixed to avoid undesirable aesthetic effects of odour, taste and colour that could be felt by consumers and technical effects of corrosion, incrustation, staining, scaling and sedimentation of pipelines and other fixtures that convey water. Despite not fixing a limit to MCLG of TDS, high TDS water can have certain other constituents at harmful levels of SMCL to cause adverse health effects. Thus MCLG can be a few times more than the SMCL.

Very low TDS: Due to insipid or bitter taste and lack of useful minerals, too-low TDS also causes problems. There does not seem to be a generally accepted lower limit.

How to measure TDS?

The standard for monitoring the purity of water by electrical resistance is termed specific resistance corrected to 25°C or R-25. Specific resistance for this purpose is based on the resistance of an electrical current between two 1 cm square plates spaced 1 cm apart as measured at 25°C. The space between the plates is a 1 cm cube.

The resistivity of absolute pure water is 18.2 (rounded) MΩ × cm at 25°C or 0.055 micro-siemens/cm. Water of this quality must be measured inline (closed system) in order to prevent atmospheric interference of the reading. As water is drawn from a water purification system that is showing 18.2 MΩ × cm purity, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is immediately absorbed into the solution. The carbon dioxide reacts with water forming carbonic acid in solution.

Carbonic acid disassociates in water forming counter ions, which conduct electrical current.

This will drop the specific resistance of the water to below 8 or 10 MΩ × cm in less than a minute.

As previously mentioned, a specific resistance 18.2 MΩ × cm (million ohms) at 25°C is considered to be absolute pure water. This only accounts for the dissolved ionic impurities commonly found in water. Organic materials found in water cannot be directly detected by resistivity | conductivity. Total organic carbon (TOC) analysis or a chromatographic method is needed to screen water for this type of generic or specific contaminant.

Natural or municipally treated waters will contain an infinite range of TDS. Some water sources may have a TDS below 50.0 ppm or over 800.0-ppm. The type of dissolved material found in a water supply may also vary. Typically, potable waters will contain a certain amount of calcium, magnesium and sodium with counter ions such as carbonates, sulfate and chloride. These materials originate from water contact with rocks and minerals found in the Earth’s crust. As water passes through the crust, these materials are dissolved and carried into rivers, lakes and reservoirs used for potable water distribution. Simply stated, sodium chloride (NaCl table salt) will dissolve in water to form disassociated ions.

The same will happen with the other mineral salts as they dissolve. These mineral salts provide the means for water to conduct an electric current. Therefore, specific resistance or conductance can be used to estimate the amount of TDS in a given water supply. It should be noted that TDS might fluctuate considerably from any source. For example, a water sample having a specific resistance of 4000 Ω × cm would contain about 125.0 ppm of TDS. A sample with a 600 Ω × cm specific resistance would have TDS of about 835.0 ppm.

In Conclusion:

In general, the total dissolved solids concentration is the sum of the cations (positively charged) and anions (negatively charged) ions in the water. Therefore, the total dissolved solids test provides a qualitative measure of the amount of dissolved ions but does not tell us the nature or ion relationships. In addition, the test does not provide us insight into the specific water quality issues, such as Elevated Hardness, Salty Taste, or Corrosiveness. Therefore, the TDS (total dissolved solids) test is used as an indicator test only to determine the general quality of the water. The sources of total dissolved solids can include all of the dissolved cations and anions, but the following table can be used as a generalization of the relationship of TDS to water quality problems.

Cations combined with Carbonates CaCO3, MgCO3 etc	Associated with hardness, scale formation, bitter taste
Cations combined with Chloride NaCl, KCl	Salty or brackish taste, increase corrosivity

An elevated total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration is not a health hazard. The TDS concentration is a secondary drinking water standard and, therefore, is regulated because it is more of an aesthetic rather than a health hazard. An elevated TDS indicates the following:

1) The concentration of the dissolved ions may cause the water to be corrosive, salty or brackish taste, result in scale formation, and interfere and decrease efficiency of hot water heaters; and

2) Many contain elevated levels of ions that are above the Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Standards, such as an elevated level of nitrate, arsenic, aluminum, copper, lead, etc.

Please find below links to BSS NanoMesh™ WPE ” Water Purification Equipment”

https://youtu.be/JNF9_SYSl1I

https://youtu.be/HtS57DvAAP8

Brochure- BSSM NanoMesh WPE Rev Dec17

Abhishek Verma; An arms dealer / Industrialist / ColaMan or just another high-living poseur, conman, blackmailer and an extortionist living on borrowed opulence or upon continuously misusing the process of law?

These articles published, various court documents, emails exchanged and photographs will give an in-depth insight on this notorious career criminal and dealer of deceit aka Mr. Abhishek Verma.

Abhishek Verma. Is he a billionaire behind bars or a high-living poseur with a trail of debts?

Agent Abhishek Verma Is he a billionaire behind bars or a high-living poseur

Who is Abhishek Verma? Is he a businessman, a pawn, a front, a billionaire, or simply a fraud?

Abhishek Verma : The Dealer’s Deceit A Tehelka Investigation

Abhishek Verma’s universe of lust and lucre

Continue reading Abhishek Verma; An arms dealer / Industrialist / ColaMan or just another high-living poseur, conman, blackmailer and an extortionist living on borrowed opulence or upon continuously misusing the process of law?

The present detailed note is in response to certain concerted efforts being made by a foreign media conglomerate by lobbying hard with the present Indian Government to Create a “Media Monopoly”

STAR INDIA, TREXIT, AND THE CURIOUS CASE OF NATIONAL BROADCASTING POLICY

The present detailed note is in response to certain concerted efforts being made by a foreign media conglomerate by lobbying hard with the Indian Government to remove/relax the extant FDI restrictions on electronic news and current affairs segment and Cross Media holding restrictions/ regulations. This is being done so as to acquire an “end-to-end” control over entire media segment i.e. from creation of content (broadcasting – both news and non-news) & distribution (mainly DTH and Cable TV) and create monopoly. The effort has been to somehow completely own an existing DTH platform in which it holds at present around 30% stake (which in itself is a violation of existing DTH guidelines as a broadcaster cannot hold more than 20% in a DTH platform). Similar efforts are being made to acquire Digital Cable Television network so as to have complete control over content distribution platforms.

This media house/entity already has cricket telecast rights of all the matches conducted by BCCI, ICC as well as that of IPL which is the most popular sport in India. This has wide ramifications not only from competition point of view but also has grave national security implications. It is pertinent to note that apart from potential distortion of the market and thereby eliminating the competition, it would also have an adverse impact on the consumers’ and public interest. If these relaxations are done in media sector then a situation will come, when in India only two or three big players ’viz., Star, Zee, Times Group and Sun TV group will remain in the media sector and which will be totally against interest of the public at large and the nation. In fact this will lead to the situation where in these media houses will dictate the Government in all the issues.

Continue reading The present detailed note is in response to certain concerted efforts being made by a foreign media conglomerate by lobbying hard with the present Indian Government to Create a “Media Monopoly”

Next Generation Networks

Same way as the Cable TV distribution networks were initially built on a Coaxial Cable and later upgraded to HFC Hybrid fiber-Coaxial distribution plants, it won’t take much of an effort to now build an IP Multicast Gigabyte HFCE Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial – Ethernet Distribution plants, that are inherent bi-directional and can easily carry Voice, Video, Data and various value added services “VAS” on these NGNs built and operated.

*VNO – A Virtual Network Operator – is a provider of management services and a reseller of network services like voice, video, data and VAS “Value Added Services” of other telecommunications service providers, that does not own the telecommunication network infrastructure

The recent recommendation by (TRAI) to implement Virtual Network Operator (VNO) is welcome news to the telecom industry that is facing innumerable challenges. Thanks to the diverse geography of the country, operators have long faced issues creating a profitable business model out of their telecom investments. Be it spectrum licensing or telecom equipment or fiber investments.

India, now on the verge of next wave of digital revolution thanks to initiatives like Digital India and 100 Smart Cities by the ambitious BJP led Modi government at the Centre, needs a revolutionary telecom policy that generously involves the participation of industry stakeholders of all types- both big and small.

As per TRAI recommendation, a VNO will be able to deliver any type of telecom services – including home telephony, broadband and OTT services like messaging, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) – under a new Unified Licensing (UL) regime. The new UL model is expected to override some of the prohibitive licensing model existing within the country.

The Next Generation Network deployment under VNO using the existing PSUs BSNL and MTNL infrastructure to roll out Quad play service

Multimedia
High Speed Mobile Broadband
Live Channels / Videos
Video Conferencing etc.
E-Commerce, Banking, Distant Education, E- Governance
Wi-Fi – connectivity to Smart Phones, Tablets, IP Surveillance Cameras, STBs, Smart Meters.

What is in it for the BSNL | MTNL?

Increase Network Utilization
Increase Revenue from all commercial services including Content, VAS & Advertisements.
Increases Urban Mobility & Rural Markets enabling rural e-commerce and e-Governance

PrasarBharati losing huge potential advertisement revenue due to the increasing number of private TV channels on DD-Freedish DTH

Doordarshan channels were launched in India to disseminate news regarding matter of national and international importance as well as cultural programs and entertainment throughout the country. Doordarshan channels are funded from tax payers money by way of huge grants/subsidies received from Government of India. Government grant to the tune of about Rs 2400 crores were given in FY2014-15. Because of the inherent limitation of the obsolete terrestrial mode of transmission along with the cable operators’ reluctance to carry DD channels on their network due to the increasing popularity of private TV channels, the ‘must carry’ regulation was put in place by Government for compulsory carriage of all DD channels by the cable operators, DPOs

However, cable operators were still reluctant to carry all channels of DD on their network. As a result DD- Freedish DTH was launched in 2002 to ensure maximum access and reach of all the DD channels across TV households in the country including rural and remote areas. In fact recently launched TV channels (more than two dozen)of Ministry of HRD are not carried by any private distribution platform as same is not been mandated by any regulation.

What started as a good initiative was soon lost in sight as DD-Freedish began commercialization of its services by auctioning the slots to private channels thus resulting in private broadcasters capturing majority of the capacity and thereby increasing their reach at a very negligible rate. As a result relegating the interest of PrasarBharati and Doordarshan to the backburner.

A review of the ratings of Channels on DD-Freedish indicates that the ratings of Doordarshan are not even 10% of the ratings of the private broadcasters. The top rated 15 channels on DD-Freedish platform have ratings which range from 50-80 almost all of them are private TV channels. The DD channels languish at ratings of zero to 3 meaning that the DD channels are going unwatched. For this reason they also are losing hundreds of crores on advertising revenue, as the advertising revenues are dependent on viewership ratings.

The private broadcasters, while paying an average of about Rs 6-8 Crores per annum to DD-Freedish are now earning Rs 500-700 Crores per channel in advertising revenues due to the high reach obtained via DD-Direct while relegating DD channels to the category of unwatched channels, DD losing hundreds of crores in its own potential advertising revenues. The cause of DD is being sold out to private channels for a pitiful revenue of about Rs 98 crores (2014-15), Rs 180 crores (2015-15), Rs 275 crores (2016-17) barely covering the expenses, but on the other hand the loss per channel to DD is unmeasured, but estimated at over Rs 700-Rs 800 crores. Also by paying merely about Rs 200 crores as carriage fee the private broadcasters are earning about Rs 2000crores as advertisement revenues collectively from their FTA channels.

Moreover, private broadcaster leverage their respective Free-to Air (FTA) channels, on the DD-Freedish platform, to promote the programming of their pay channels at no cost to the broadcaster and no financial benefits accruing to PrasarBharati in the form of potential advertisement revenue.

It is evident from the viewership data that by pole-vaulting private channels to GRPs of 50-75, its own channels have been relegated to virtually no viewership as the ratings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha indicate (Zero ratings). Even DD-News run as a national news channel has a rating of just 3, which is 20 times lower than that those of a private channel n the same platform. The viewership have seen a steep decline. According to Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) India, DD National no longer finds a place among the 10 most-watched Hindi general entertainment channels in the urban and rural viewership matrix. Among the top three channels in the rural markets are Zee Anmol, Sony Pal and Star Utsav. In 2015, DD National garnered 115 million impressions on an average, according to BARC India, while the most-viewed television channels like Star Plus, Colors and Zee TV, on an average, command anywhere between 400 million and 700 million impressions every year.

Pertinent to also mention that “ It is difficult to imagine that the country’s television measurement system is being controlled by select TV broadcasters, advertising agencies, pay TV channel aggregators and large FMCG companies – all having a direct stake in the outcomes and hence a strong motive to manipulate the ratings to their advantage. The fact that Star India sits on the Board of Directors while its’ channel, Star Plus, has been rated No. 1 in Hindi GEC for over more than a decade, does merit investigation and inspection into the methodology and the working of BARC the only Television Audience Measurement system in the country.

No efforts have been made by PrasarBharati management to improve the programming of DD channels. It is also understood that some leading production houses like Balaji Telefilms had evinced interest in the auction, but Doordarshan decided to scrap it, citing shortcomings etc., in the applications. The broadcaster had received many applications from production houses, including Ekta Kapoor-promoted Balaji Telefilms and Optymistix Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, which produces Comedy Nights Live on Colors, in the first round of the application process. As a result of this DD channels have very low advertisement from private sectors and heavily depending on Government and public sector department advertisements.

According to recent media reports which indicate that the Star TV group with a planning to launch of ‘Star Sports First’ in the free to air (FTA) genre, will target people who do not have access to pay television and have only watched sports content on Doordarshan. If this happens then advertisement revenue of DD channels will further reduce significantly. Doordarshan has seen its advertisement revenue decline from Rs911.01 crore in 2014-15 to Rs755.79 crore in 2015-16. In the past four years, its revenue has slipped by 26%, from Rs1, 025.78 crore in 2012-13 to Rs755.79 crore in 2015-16.

It is therefore necessary that immediate corrective steps should be taken and a policy regarding limiting the DD-Freedish slots to private TV broadcasters should be brought out immediately. Necessary action should also be initiated to check the reason for declining advertisement revenue of DD channels. In fact PrasarBharati should immediately take corrective measures to increase the advertisement revenue of DD.

In India, the task of television audience measurement is entrusted to Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), a body promoted by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) which is primarily formed to protect and promote interests of pay TV Broadcasters; along with the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) and the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI), IBF holds majority i.e. 60% equity in BARC.

The BARC Board of Directors is comprised of the CEOs and MDs of Star India Pvt. Ltd, Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd, Multiscreen Media Pvt. Ltd, Zee Entertainment, Eenadu TV, Procter & Gamble, Godrej Consumer Products and others. Further, BARC has a Technical Committee and Sub Committees each for TV and Digital which too are predominantly comprised of the likes of Star India Pvt. Ltd and its subsidiaries. It is difficult to imagine that the country’s television audience measurement system is being controlled by select TV broadcasters, advertising agencies, pay TV channel aggregators and large FMCG companies – all having a direct stake in the outcomes and hence a strong motive to manipulate the ratings to their advantage.

Obscenity under the Indian law

“Section 67 A in The Information Technology Act, 2000

77 [67 Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. -Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees. ]

THE INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1986 (NO. 60 OF 1986)

An Act to prohibit indecent representation of women through advertisements or in publications, writings, paintings, figures or in any other manner and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Penalty: Any person who contravenes the provisions of Sec 3 or Sec 4 shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for term of not less than six months but which may extend to five years and also with a fine not less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees.

[Section 292. In the Indian Penal Code – Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.—²⁶¹ ]

(1) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.] [(2) ] Whoever—

(a) sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or

(b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or

(e) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section, shall be punished²⁶³ [on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees].

Section 293 in the Indian Penal Code

265 [293. Sale, etc., of obscene objects to young person.—Whoever sells, lets to hire, distributes, exhibits or circulates to any person under the age of twenty years any such obscene object as is referred to in the last preceding section, or offers or attempts so to do, shall be punished 2[on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees].]

R. Basu v. National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another

Citation: 2007CriLJ4245

Judges: A.K. Sikri J

Facts: Mr. Arun Aggarwal, a practising advocate, filed a complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) against Star TV, Star Movies and Channel V, naming persons responsible for the day-to-day affairs of these channels or the various cable operators transmitting these channels. According to the complainant, the obscene and vulgar TV films shown and transmitted through various cable operators amounted to obscenity and, therefore, the accused persons had committed offences under Sections 292/293/294 IPC and under Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

Acting on this complaint, the CMM viewed these films and, on 9 April 1997, ordered a police inquiry into who was responsible for the exhibition of the films. After the police report was received, the complainant was examined on 17 July. After hearing arguments, the CMM passed an order on 24 September 1997, prima facie finding that the four films shown on these TV channels were obscene. The accused persons were summoned under Section 292 IPC, Section 4 read with Sections 6 & 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and Section 5A read with Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The accused filed this petition before the Delhi High Court challenging this summoning order. The High Court judges quoted the CMM’s order, in which he refers to each of the four movies in question, explaining their contents and why he finds them obscene. The CMM mentions the haphazard mushrooming of cable television networks all over the country, resulting in the availability of signals of foreign television networks via satellites. According to the CMM, “The programmes available on these satellite channels are predominantly western and totally alien to our culture and way of life. Such programmes play havoc with the moral fabric of society and need to be regulated.” The CMM observed that viewing of these movies by the public at large would not have been possible without Cable Operators.

Issues: Did the accused persons violate Sections 292, 293, and 294 of the Indian Penal Code (relating to obscenity), and Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act?7

Arguments: The petitioners argued that two of the movies had been awarded “A”certificates by the CBFC and therefore were immune from being prosecuted for obscenity under Section 292 of the IPC and the Indecent Representation of Women Act. With regard to the other two movies it was admitted that they have no censor certificates.

However, they stated that with respect to the movie, “Big Bad Mama,” the application for certification had been made to the CBFC. They argued that these movies are telecast from other countries via satellite and broadcasters comply with various strict internal codes as well as the statutory codes prescribed by the Broadcasting Authority of the place of uplink. In respect of some of the individual accused persons, it was argued that they were not responsible for the telecast of these movies.

Decision: The High Court held that for the two films without censor certificates the petitioners could not claim immunity from Section 292 IPC. For the other two films, also, the Court said that, since the petitioners had not produced CBFC certificates, they could not claim immunity from prosecution.

The Court observed that the legislature had enacted the Cable Television Network (Regulation Act) to tackle the “problem” of obscenity, and a Programme Code had also been introduced. “Various statutory safeguards for regulating transmission on cable television networks in India have been provided therein. The petitioners have to abide by these guidelines and laws relating to the electronic media, keeping in mind the sentiments and social value of the Indian society, while relaying its programmes.”

The Court observed that, in view of this development, a joint application was moved by the petitioners and the complainant, in which the complainant agreed not to press his complaint in view of the aforesaid statutory provisions and other provisions now in place.

Mr. R. Basu vs National Capital Territory Of Delhi on 4 June, 2007

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/661900/

Vertical Integration in Broadcasting sector in India

The media plays an important and multiple roles in society. The most obvious of these are collection and dissemination of information, communication and entertainment among the people. Further, through its reach to the people the media also transmits social and cultural values and serves as a medium of education Thus a major motivation behind the restrictions on cross media ownership is to preserve the diversity of media so that citizens have access to diverse viewpoints that enable them to have access to a wide variety of views and thereby participate fully in democratic process.

Various foreign countries including USA and Australia have very stringent regulation in media sectors including restriction in media sectors whether it is FDI and / or vertical /cross-media restrictions. In India the current sets of regulators for different forms of media are toothless in regard to handling an issue this complex. Hence, a comprehensive regulatory framework i.e. Broadcast Regulation Act is need of the day for media for oversight on potential anti competitive behavior and outcomes in a fast growing and technologically developing sector.

It is submitted that the issue of FDI to be permitted in India cannot be viewed in isolation as it is intrinsically linked with the investments permitted on a reciprocal basis to Indian companies overseas. Developing a strong multinational presence for an Indian company is dependent on what investment climate it faces in India as against what kind of investment opportunities are offered to Indian Companies for providing and undertaking similar services in other countries and acquiring similar assets overseas.

Hence, at the outset it is stated that the premises on which the liberalization of FDI regime and relaxing / removing cross media restriction is being planned to be considered in media sector (especially in News, DTH, HITS, etc.) is based on inadequate points and should be widened to include international trade issues, India’s commitments under GATT and WTO and the reciprocal offers, Indian companies receive in respect of FDI from various countries.

Detailed note on FDI in Broadcasting and Media in India by Mr.Vikki Choudhry