SC nudges JioStar back to Delhi HC in TRAI tariff dispute, broadcaster withdraws plea

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked JioStar India Pvt Ltd to return to the Delhi High Court to clarify that it does not intend to amend its decade-old writ petitions challenging the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)'s tariff framework, effectively declining to intervene at this stage in the broadcaster's challenge to a High Court order that had imposed costs and directed amendments to its pleadings.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the matter, where senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Gopal Jain appeared for JioStar. The hearing focused on whether the Delhi High Court had correctly interpreted the broadcaster's stand that its petitions required amendment, rather than on the merits of the long-running challenge to TRAI's tariff and interconnection regulations.

The apex court advised the broadcaster to move the Delhi High Court with an application expressly stating that it does not propose to amend its petitions and allow the High Court to adjudicate the issue. Accepting the court's suggestion, Rohatgi informed the Bench that JioStar would withdraw its proceedings before the Supreme Court and approach the High Court.

"We don't want any amendments," Rohatgi submitted, arguing that the High Court had proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the broadcaster intended to alter its pleadings.
Costs order at the centre of dispute Tuesday's hearing stemmed from an April 9, 2026 order of the Delhi High Court, in which a Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul recorded that counsel for Star India (now JioStar) had earlier given an oral assurance that "appropriate corrective measures" would be taken by amending the prayer clause to seek consequential relief.

The High Court had observed that both parties agreed the maintainability of the petitions was in question in the absence of consequential relief, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India. It also noted TRAI's submission that, since the old regulatory regime had already ceased to exist and the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the writ petitions had become infructuous. Rather than deciding that issue, the High Court recorded the petitioner's assurance that it would pay costs of ₹2 lakh and file an amendment application.

The April order directed the broadcaster to deposit ₹2 lakh as costs within four weeks—₹50,000 each to the NDBA Members Welfare Fund and the CDCBA Members Welfare Fund, and the remaining ₹1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Bar Association's costs account. Subject to payment of costs, the court granted leave to amend the prayer clause within four weeks and ordered that the matter be listed after six months. It further provided that if the costs were not deposited, the petitions would be listed on May 14, 2026.

Appearing before the Supreme Court, Rohatgi strongly contested the premise that any amendment was necessary.

"In my last 45 or 50 years of practice, if I challenge a law, the court either strikes it down or upholds it. I have not understood what consequential amendment is required," he argued.
He maintained that the writ petitions already contained comprehensive prayers seeking to strike down both the tariff orders and the accompanying regulations, leaving no scope or necessity for additional relief.

The senior counsel also contended that the High Court's order had created an impression that the broadcaster had accepted the need to amend its petitions when, in fact, no such amendment was legally warranted.

Supreme Court declines to decide procedural issue

The Supreme Court, however, chose not to examine whether the High Court had correctly interpreted the broadcaster's submissions.

Instead, the Bench observed that if JioStar believed no amendment was required, it should place that stand directly before the Delhi High Court.

"You can make the statement there itself... go before the High Court and say you don't require to amend your petition. Let the judge decide it one way or the other," the Bench observed.

The court also indicated that if the High Court eventually ruled against the broadcaster, it would remain free to pursue its remedies before the Supreme Court thereafter.

Following the court's observations, Rohatgi agreed to withdraw the transfer petition as well as the present proceedings before the apex court and seek clarification before the High Court.
Commercial subscriber issue remains unresolved

Although Tuesday's hearing centred on procedural questions, it once again highlighted one of the broadcasting sector's most significant regulatory disputes.

At the heart of the litigation lies the broadcasters' contention that TRAI's tariff framework fails to distinguish between residential subscribers and commercial establishments.

Illustrating the issue before the Bench, Rohatgi referred to hotels receiving television signals.

"If a hotel has 500 television sets and is commercially exploiting the signal, it cannot be treated the same as a one-bedroom home. You cannot have the same price. It's apples and oranges," he argued.

According to the broadcaster, commercial establishments derive business value from television signals and therefore should not be subject to the same tariff applicable to ordinary residential households.

The broadcaster further argued that TRAI simultaneously framed regulations and tariff orders, making them inseparable.

"The regulations are only the shell in which the tariff has been fixed. One without the other is non-functional," Rohatgi submitted, contending that a challenge to the tariff order necessarily required examination of the accompanying regulations.

The Bench acknowledged that several connected appeals involving the validity of TRAI's tariff framework and the classification of commercial subscribers remain pending before the Supreme Court and would ultimately determine the substantive legal issues.

Litigation spanning more than a decade

The dispute has its origins in writ petitions filed in 2014 and 2016 challenging TRAI's tariff orders and regulatory framework governing television broadcasting.

Over the years, the litigation has expanded across multiple judicial forums. Earlier tariff orders were challenged before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), while questions relating to TRAI's regulations reached various High Courts and eventually the Supreme Court.

The broadcaster has consistently maintained that tariff orders and regulations issued by TRAI constitute a composite regulatory framework and cannot be examined in isolation.

The Delhi High Court had earlier deferred hearings because several connected issues were already pending before the apex court. Most recently, on May 14, 2026, the High Court granted what it termed a final adjournment after the broadcaster informed the court that it had challenged the costs order before the Supreme Court. TRAI opposed the adjournment on the ground that the broadcaster had not complied with the earlier costs order. Nevertheless, the High Court postponed the hearing until August 27, 2026 while also allowing certain intervenors to be deleted from the proceedings.

What lies ahead

Following Tuesday's proceedings, JioStar is expected to withdraw its challenge before the Supreme Court and move the Delhi High Court with an application clarifying that it does not intend to amend its writ petitions.

The High Court will now have to decide whether the petitions can proceed in their existing form or whether amendment of the prayer clause remains necessary before the court examines the substantive challenge to TRAI's tariff regime.

The outcome could have significant implications for the broadcasting industry, particularly on the unresolved question of whether commercial establishments such as hotels should be treated differently from residential households under India's television tariff framework—a regulatory issue that has remained under judicial scrutiny for more than twelve years.