Source: Kerala High Court  

Why in News? 

The Kerala High Court in the matter of Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation v. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ruled that while only Constitutional Courts can enforce fundamental rights, specialized tribunals like the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) can exercise judicial review over those rights. This distinction arose during a challenge to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services regulations and tariff order.  

• The court stated that while constitutional courts have the power to enforce rights, tribunals can assess whether decisions align with those rights, thus directing the petitioners to seek redress before TDSAT. 

What was the Background of the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation v. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Case? 

• The case originated when the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation and two television broadcasters (Viacom18 Media Private Limited and Star India Private Limited), along with other broadcasting establishment representatives, filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. 
• The petitioners challenged specific provisions in two regulatory documents:  
  • Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017. 
  • Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2017. 
• The petitioners specifically sought to:  
  • Set aside Clause 3 of the 2024 Tariff Order. 
  • Set aside the Fifth Proviso to Clause 3(3) of the 2017 Tariff Order. 
  • Set aside Clause (a) of Second Proviso to Regulation 6(1) of 2017 Regulations. 
• A single judge bench initially heard the case and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to approach the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). 
• The petitioners then filed an appeal before the division bench of the Kerala High Court, arguing that:  
• The High Court, not TDSAT, was the appropriate forum due to alleged fundamental rights violations 
• The Tariff Order and Regulations of TRAI should be subject to judicial review 
• The respondent authorities (including TRAI) countered by arguing that:  
• The Supreme Court had already upheld the validity of these Regulations in the Star India Private Limited v Department of Industrial Policy and Promotions case (2019) 
• TDSAT has the authority to review Tariff Orders, including cases involving fundamental rights violations 
• The legal principles established by the Supreme Court couldn't be circumvented merely because not all grounds were previously considered 
• The case had particular significance because it involved questions about the jurisdiction and authority of specialized tribunals versus constitutional courts in matters involving fundamental rights. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court held that while the writ petition was maintainable concerning the specific challenge to the regulation, the Single Judge had erred in examining the merits of the challenge against the Tariff Order after noting the existence of an efficacious alternate remedy before TDSAT. 
• The Court observed a fundamental distinction between enforcing fundamental rights and exercising judicial review concerning those rights - while only constitutional courts can enforce fundamental rights, any authority with review power can determine whether a decision or order aligns with fundamental rights parameters. 
• The Court distinguished between res judicata and precedent, noting that res judicata pertains to procedural rules binding litigating parties to previous judgments, whereas precedent constitutes binding legal declarations applicable to all courts and authorities irrespective of parties' rights and obligations. 
• The Court observed that specialized tribunals like TDSAT, comprising expert members with specialized knowledge, cannot be equated with constitutional courts, as the implementation of law involves multiple dimensions including market, economic, environmental, social, and political aspects. 
• The Court held that constitutional courts are not adequately equipped to handle specialized fields, noting that traditional courts tend to focus on dogmatic interpretation of law rather than the nuanced approach required for specialized areas. 
• Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Cellular Operators Association of India case, the Court emphasized TDSAT's wide jurisdiction under Section 14-A of the Act, extending to examining the legality, propriety, or correctness of authority directions/orders. 
• The Court determined that once the Supreme Court dismisses a challenge to regulation, no court bound by Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) can revisit that binding judgment on different grounds, as only the Supreme Court has authority to revisit its own declared law. 
• The Court noted that while constitutional courts are competent to take up such challenges, they must consider economic implications and policy dimensions of TRAI's decisions from various angles, requiring a perspective that traditional constitutional courts typically cannot address effectively. 

What is Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)? 

• Establishment and Evolution: 
  • TDSAT was established in 2000 through an amendment to the TRAI Act, 1997. 
  • In 2004, its jurisdiction expanded to include broadcasting and cable services. 
  • Through the Finance Act 2017, its scope further extended to include matters previously under Cyber Appellate Tribunal and Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal. 
• Core Functions and Mandate: 
  • Adjudicates disputes between licensor and licensee. 
  • Resolves conflicts between two or more service providers. 
  • Handles disputes between service providers and consumer groups. 
  • Disposes of appeals against TRAI's decisions, directions, or orders. 
• Composition and Eligibility: 
  • Consists of a Chairperson and two Members, all appointed by Central Government. 
  • The chairperson must be or have been a Supreme Court Judge or High Court Chief Justice. 
  • Members must have held Secretary-level positions in Central/State Government or possess expertise in technology, telecommunication, industry, commerce, or administration. 
  • Term limits: Chairperson serves until age 70 or four years, Members until age 65. 
• Jurisdictional Scope: 
  • Exercises jurisdiction over Telecom, Broadcasting, IT, and Airport tariff matters. 
  • Functions under three major acts: TRAI Act 1997, IT Act 2008, and Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Act 2008. 
  • It has both original and appellate jurisdiction in telecom, broadcasting, and airport tariff matters. 
  • Holds only appellate jurisdiction in cyber matters. 
• Procedural Powers: 
  • Not bound by Civil Procedure Code but guided by principles of natural justice. 
  • Possesses powers of a civil court regarding summoning, document production, and evidence collection. 
  • Can regulate its own procedure and review its decisions. 
  • Orders are executable as civil court decrees. 
• Appeal Mechanism: 
  • Orders in telecom, broadcasting, and airport tariff matters can be appealed to Supreme Court on substantial questions of law. 
  • Cyber matter appeals go to respective High Courts. 
  • No appeals allowed against interlocutory orders or orders made with parties' consent. 
• Special Features: 
  • Civil courts cannot entertain matters within TDSAT's jurisdiction. 
  • Proceedings are deemed judicial proceedings under IPC sections 193, 228, and 196. 
  • Functions as a specialized tribunal with expertise in technical and commercial aspects of telecommunications. 
  • Plays crucial role in ensuring orderly growth of telecom sector and protecting consumer interests. 

What is Constitutional Court? 

• Constitutional Courts in India - specifically the Supreme Court and High Courts - are established directly by the Constitution under Articles 124 and 214 respectively, with the primary authority to interpret the Constitution and protect fundamental rights. 
• These courts possess unique powers including:  
  • Judicial review of legislative and executive actions. 
  • Authority to issue prerogative writs (under Articles 32 and 226). 
  • Power to strike down unconstitutional laws. 
  • Ability to enforce fundamental rights directly. 
• Unlike specialized tribunals, Constitutional Courts have inherent and wide jurisdiction over matters relating to constitutional interpretation, enforcement of fundamental rights, and maintaining federal balance between Centre and States. 
• Constitutional Courts' decisions on constitutional matters serve as binding precedents for all other courts and tribunals in India, making them the ultimate authority on constitutional interpretation. 
• They function as independent guardians of the Constitution, ensuring constitutional governance and rule of law while maintaining checks and balances in India's democratic system.