https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308154 Corporate petitioners that were substantially foreign-owned could not maintain an Article 19 challenge, because a corporation is not a citizen and the pleadings did not show that the asserted rights belonged to Indian citizens or natural persons. The proviso to Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act was upheld as a valid enabling measure that brought broadcasting services within the regulatory framework, and Section 11(2) was not invalidated for excessive delegation because the scheme disclosed policy guidance, safeguards, and appellate control. The tariff and interconnection measures, including the cable television rules and Regulation 4, were also upheld as intra vires and constitutionally permissible. en-us Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jun 2023 13:05:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308154 Corporate petitioners that were substantially foreign-owned could not maintain an Article 19 challenge, because a corporation is not a citizen and the pleadings did not show that the asserted rights belonged to Indian citizens or natural persons. The proviso to Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act was upheld as a valid enabling measure that brought broadcasting services within the regulatory framework, and Section 11(2) was not invalidated for excessive delegation because the scheme disclosed policy guidance, safeguards, and appellate control. The tariff and interconnection measures, including the cable television rules and Regulation 4, were also upheld as intra vires and constitutionally permissible. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308154