250 show-cause notices rekindle TV ad cap battle

A long-dormant regulation has returned to haunt India’s television industry and this time, broadcasters say the impact could be severe. With TRAI issuing over 250 show-cause notices and the Delhi High Court set to resume final hearings early next year, the fear is clear: the 12-minute advertising cap, frozen for more than a decade, may finally be implemented.

If enforced, the cap would strike at the heart of linear TV economics at a moment when broadcasters are battling falling ad revenues, volatile demand, rising content costs and an unprecedented shift of audiences to digital and free-to-air platforms. Senior industry leaders who spoke to exchange4media warn that implementation now would be destabilising for a business already running on thin margins. 

Also read: Ad-cap row flares again: TRAI issues 250+ show-cause notices, broadcasters cite HC stay

Legal ground under the scanner

Rohit Jain, Managing Partner at Singhania & Co, says the regulator’s latest shots may not rest on firm footing.

“Technically, TRAI has a fragile legal ground to issue notices despite the stay. TRAI seems to be exploiting a legal distinction between ‘administrative process’ and ‘coercive action.’ The Delhi High Court’s 2013 interim order restrains TRAI from taking coercive measures (like cancelling licenses or imposing fines). It does not explicitly ban TRAI from sending letters or asking ‘why are you non-compliant?’ TRAI is mostly arguing that issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) is a procedural step to ‘ascertain facts’, not a punishment in itself.”

Jain adds that the rule itself can be challenged on constitutional grounds.

“Broadcasters can challenge the 12-minute rule under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Trade) using the doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness. In COAI vs TRAI (the Call Drop case), the Supreme Court struck down a TRAI regulation as ‘manifestly arbitrary.’ Broadcasters can argue the 12-minute cap is arbitrary because it applies only to linear TV while competitors (YouTube, OTT, FAST channels) have zero ad caps. Regulating one half of the screen while leaving the other half free creates an unconstitutional ‘unlevel playing field.’”

Business impact could be immediate and heavy

The renewed regulatory push comes at a time when monetisation is weak across genres. Despite lower CPRP levels, most broadcasters still struggle to fully sell existing inventory. A forced, sudden squeeze on minutes, many say, could push the sector into deeper financial strain.

An industry veteran pointed out that years of stretched commercial breaks have built the economic backbone of many networks. Several GECs and movie channels have routinely run 14–16 minutes of ads per hour, with spikes reaching 17–18 minutes on high-demand days. News channels have even touched 30–32 minutes during peak seasons.

“For advertisers, this won’t be ideal either,” the veteran added. “They’ll end up paying more for less inventory, even if cleaner breaks help some brands.”

Another senior executive argued that consumption patterns have changed so drastically that the 10+2 framework feels outdated.

“There is no such cap on OTT, then why linear TV?” he said. “If you take a 24-hour average, most channels today don’t even hit the 10+2 limit. Demand is inconsistent. The business is declining. This cap will worsen matters.”

The compliance debate: context vs. regulation

Broadcasters argue that the data being interpreted as a uniform violation of the 10+2 advertising cap is misleading. Their point is that a dip in overall advertising demand has made them sell commercial time wherever inventory is available, which means some hours carry more ads while others carry significantly less. In other words, exceeding the 12-minute cap does not automatically mean every hour or every programme is overloaded with advertising.

Instead, broadcasters say that because ad revenues are shrinking, they are forced to redistribute limited advertiser demand unpredictably across the day, filling slots at times when advertisers are still willing to pay. This results in some hours breaching the cap even though the channel’s overall daily ad load may still be low or comparable to past levels.

The government, however, views this practice differently. From a regulatory standpoint, any hour that crosses the mandated threshold is considered non-compliant, regardless of the broader market context. Authorities believe that even if broadcasters are simply trying to maximise limited revenue opportunities, selling above the prescribed limit in specific hours violates the rule and undermines the intent of maintaining a balanced viewer experience.