TRAI's broad regulatory power over broadcasting upheld for pricing, bundling and consumer choice, not broadcast content.

The TRAI Act was construed as conferring broad regulatory power over broadcasting services in the public interest through the amended definition of telecommunication service, Section 11 functions and Section 36 rule-making power. The impugned regulations and tariff order were treated as governing carriage, interconnection, pricing structure, non-discrimination, consumer choice, bundling and discount limits, rather than creative content of programmes. The Copyright Act was read as protecting proprietary rights in the work and its broadcast or re-broadcast, while the TRAI framework addressed market regulation. On harmonious construction, both statutes were given effect in their respective spheres, with the regulatory statute prevailing to the extent of inconsistency in the public-interest field.

---

---

Issues: Whether the telecom regulator had power under the TRAI Act to frame the impugned broadcasting regulations and tariff order governing pricing, bundling, a-la-carte offering, bouquet composition and discount limits, and whether those measures impermissibly regulated broadcast content or encroached upon the Copyright Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the TRAI Act, especially the amended definition of telecommunication service, the functions under Section 11, and the regulation-making power under Section 36, was read as conferring wide authority to regulate broadcasting services in the public interest. The impugned measures were found to operate on carriage, interconnection, pricing structure, non-discrimination and consumer choice, not on the creative content of programmes. The Copyright Act was held to protect proprietary rights in the work, its broadcast and re-broadcast, while the TRAI framework addressed market regulation and the balance between broadcasters and subscribers. On that footing, the two enactments were treated as operating in different spheres, and any overlap was resolved by harmonious construction in favour of giving effect to both, with the regulatory statute prevailing to the extent of inconsistency in the public-interest field.

Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned regulation and tariff order failed. The measures were held to be within TRAI's statutory power and not ultra vires on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or alleged interference with content.

---