Breaking IBF Moves SC Against Bombay HC Verdict on NTO 2.0

[A4Akash]

The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) has moved the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court verdict upholding the New Tariff Orders (NTO) 1.0 and 2.0 besides the powers of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to fix tariff for broadcasting.
The petition was filed today and is tentatively expected to list next week.
The IBF has contended that the Bombay HC's observation that the broadcasters have a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, but the said right is not absolute will infringe on its fundamental right to free speech and expression.

IBF moves SC against Bombay HC verdict on NTO 2.0 - Exchange4media

The petition was filed today and is tentatively expected to list next week

www.exchange4media.com

 

[vicky 1213]

If SC decision goes in fevour of IBF than case tensfer in ICJ
After ICJ both party will go UNO

 

[Yassar]

अगर SC का फैसला IBF के पक्ष में जाता है तो ICJ में केस टेन्सर होने पर
आईसीजे के बाद दोनों पक्ष यूएनओ जाएंगे

suprima court result nto 2.0 2024

 

[N.K raj]

Almost 16 month gone then Bombay high court given verdict now case move to Supreme court

 

[stiwari]

Supreme court will 99 percent support Govt. regulatory agency TRAI and customers supportive,because their own DTH cable TV budget is affected,let us see where case goes and when verdict comes

 

[Slu]

220

I think supreme court will quash broadcaster plea and trai will win ..Hope for the best....

 

[RAJ KUMAR]

But all in one, again time waste.
SC at least take 6 months or more.

 

[A4Akash]

Bombay HC order on NTO 2.0 will impinge on free speech, says IBDF in its petition to SC - Exchange4media

The petition states that the Bombay HC's recent order rejecting petitions filed by broadcasters against the NTO will allow TRAI to micro-manage the broadcasting sector

www.exchange4media.com

 

[Slu]

But all in one, again time waste.
SC at least take 6 months or more.

Any Listing of the case

 

[RAJ KUMAR]

any body have any information, when SC listed this case ??