HC quashes Centre's note on CAS

The Delhi High Court quashed the Centre's notification deferring the implementation of conditional access system (CAS) in the Capital, saying it was an arbitrary exercise of power.

"We hold that the issuance of impugned notification is an arbitrary exercise of power not supported by any valid reason and would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India," a division bench comprising Chief Justice B C Patel and Justice A K Sikri said, quashing the August 29 notification.

However, the court dismissed the petitioners' plea to quash the government's May 7 notification, which required the cable operators to provide at least 30 free-to-air channels, including three Doordarshan channels at a maximum charge of Rs 72 as it had already upheld the validity of the same.

CAS was implemented in Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata from September 1 but after the notification, its implementation was deferred in the Capital.

Several petitioners, including the Zee-promoted Siti Cable Network and Cable Network Association (CNA), had challenged the Centre's notification deferring indefinitely the implementation of CAS in New Delhi from September 1, terming it as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to public interest.

They had alleged that CAS was deferred in the Capital for political considerations, undermining public interest. Additional solicitor general K K Sud said CAS was temporarily deferred in the Capital due to possible law and order problems and the Centre was not averse to its implementation.

However, the court said "ex-facie, it is only a bogey -- created with no substance". The bench said, "It is not stated as to what kind of law and order problem such an implementation would have created and how it was not possible for the respondents (government) to curb the same."

The bench, which had reserved its order on September 25, also took note of the fact that after the first notification on the implementation of CAS, cable operators made necessary arrangements for installing CAS hardware at their headends and made huge investment in it, which were lying idle.

In its rejoinder filed in the court, the government had said the decision was taken only after weighing the pros and cons of the circumstances arising from the conflicting political interests so as to ensure that a consumer-friendly initiative did not become a casualty of competing political interests.

"The issue had potential to create law and order problems due to the conflicting political interests," it had further submitted.