The Delhi High Court has made an important observation regarding the scope of Channel Placement Agreements between broadcasters and Distribution Platform Operators (DPOs). In a recent judgment, the Court clarified that such agreements cannot be interpreted as giving the broadcaster the right to demand that its channels be made part of a bouquet of channels offered by the DPO.
For clarity, a bouquet of channels refers to a group or bundle of TV channels offered together as a package to subscribers.
This judgment came during the hearing of a plea filed by Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt Ltd, the owner of the TV9 Network, challenging certain interim orders passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).
“Although, it is true that under Regulation 18(3) and 18(4) of the Interconnection Regulations, 2017, it is a mandatory obligation of the respondent no.3 (DPO) to necessarily allot an LCN to each of its channels on its platform, evidently, the only purport of the 'Channel Placement Agreement' executed between the parties was to assign a particular favourable/preferred LCN to the petitioner within its genre for which the consideration was paid by the petitioner. Entering into an agreement for the purpose of assigning a particular LCN (as per the petitioner's preference) is quite different from assuming any obligation to make the petitioner's channel/s a part of the respondent no.3's 'bouquet offerings' to its subscribers,”
— Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after the DPO disconnected the petitioner’s channels in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on 06.06.2024. The broadcaster (TV9) argued that the disconnection was made without following the mandatory procedure laid down under Regulation 17 of the Interconnection Regulations, 2017, which requires issuing a disconnection notice before such an action.
Following this, the TDSAT issued an interim order on 05.07.2024, directing the DPO to ensure uninterrupted and unhindered transmission of the channels with the same Logical Channel Number (LCN), same position, and same packages.
Despite the TDSAT order, the broadcaster claimed that the DPO failed to comply and instead issued migration notices for the petitioner’s channels. These migration notices were challenged before the tribunal, which again passed interim orders restraining the DPO from giving effect to the migration.
In response, the DPO filed applications seeking modification of the earlier interim orders.
Read also: Supreme Court Announces Advocates-on-Record Exam Dates for June 2025
In its impugned order, the TDSAT allowed the DPO to offer the petitioner’s channels on an a-la-carte basis, which means offering them individually rather than as part of a group or bundle.
The tribunal referred to Regulation 11(1) of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 (QoS Regulations 2017). It held that a DPO is permitted to modify or discontinue its bouquets, and also noted that under the Interconnection Regulations 2017, broadcasters cannot demand their channels be included in any specific bouquet.
“As per the Interconnection Regulations 2017, no broadcaster can demand packaging of the channel in any particular bouquet,”
— TDSAT
The petitioner relied on the Channel Placement Agreement signed with the DPO and argued that the intention behind the agreement was not just LCN placement but also to ensure inclusion of its channels in all the bouquets offered by the DPO.
TV9 contended that Regulation 3(4) of the Interconnection Regulations 2017 allows for such agreements through mutual negotiation, and thus, any channel placement agreement arrived at between the parties is valid and enforceable.
The Delhi High Court, while examining the issue, observed that the TDSAT had rightly considered the legal framework under the Interconnection and QoS Regulations of 2017.
The Court emphasized that a Channel Placement Agreement is limited in scope—meant to assign a specific or favorable LCN to a broadcaster within its genre and not to guarantee bouquet inclusion.
“The past inclusion of the petitioner’s channels as part of bouquets does not create any legal right in favour of the petitioner for continuation of such inclusion,”
— Delhi High Court
The Court also affirmed that the DPO has the legal right to discontinue any existing bouquet, as long as it provides prior notice to its subscribers. This may include running scrolls or displaying a notice on the customer care programming service, as mandated under Regulation 11 of the QoS Regulations 2017.
With these observations, the Court upheld the TDSAT's order and dismissed the TV9 Network's petition.
Case title: Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
(W.P.(C) 3147/2025 & CM APPL. 14843/2025)
