“This feels like arm-twisting”: Broadcasters call TRAI’s ad-cap push illegitimate
In the letter accessed by Storyboard18, the industry body stated that till the disposal of these writ petitions, the Respondent/TRAI is restrained from taking any coercive measures against their members to make them abide by the impugned Regulations.
ADVERTISEMENT
The News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA) has asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to refrain from taking action against several broadcasters that recently received show-cause notices for allegedly exceeding the permissible duration of advertising on television channels. The industry body has argued that a long-standing interim order of the Delhi High Court restrains TRAI from enforcing the contentious advertising cap regulations.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had served showcause notices to many major broadcasters for failure for submission of data related to advertisement duration telecasted per hour on their channels. In 2012, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India had released the Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels). This mandated that broadcasters should restrict advertisements on television channels to a maximum of twelve minutes per clock hour.
Meanwhile, broadcasters have slammed TRAI, “This feels like an arm-twisting tactic by TRAI. The matter is sub judice, the court’s interim protection is clear, and yet broadcasters are being pushed to comply through show-cause notices,” said one broadcaster who requested anonymity.
Another senior executive from broadcasting industry said, "Advertisers need stable inventory commitments. If we are forced to slash ad minutes suddenly, it disrupts annual deals and damages long-term partnerships."
In its letter addressed (a copy of which is with Storyboard18) to Prashant Tripathi, Senior Research Officer in TRAI’s Broadcasting & Cable Services Division, NBDA said some of its member channels had been issued notices for violating the Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) Regulations, 2012, as amended in 2013 — commonly referred to as the Ad-Cap Regulations. The alleged violations pertain to the period between July 7, 2025 and July 13, 2025.
The show-cause notices direct broadcasters to submit detailed explanations, supporting documents, and reasons within 15 days, justifying why punitive action should not be taken for what TRAI has termed “wilful non-compliance.”
NBDA, however, has pointed out that the matter of advertisement duration limits is still sub judice. In the ongoing case News Broadcasters Association & Others vs. TRAI (W.P.(C) 7989/2013), the Delhi High Court issued an interim order on December 17, 2013 stating that TRAI is restrained from taking any coercive steps to enforce the Ad-Cap regulations against broadcasters until the writ petition is finally decided.
“Till the disposal of these writ petitions, the Respondent/TRAI is restrained from taking any coercive measures against their members to make them abide by the impugned Regulations,” the court had stated in its interim relief order, a copy of which NBDA enclosed in its communication to TRAI.
Invoking this legal protection, NBDA said the issuance of fresh show-cause notices contradicts the court’s directive and requested TRAI to refrain from initiating any action pending the final outcome of the case.
While NBDA has taken up the issue collectively, the association informed TRAI that individual member broadcasters would also write to the authority separately to clarify their respective positions regarding the alleged violations.
The association has further sought a meeting with TRAI Chairman Anil Kumar Lahoti to discuss the matter and present its concerns in detail.
NBDA expressed hope that TRAI would consider the legal context and respond positively, reiterating that regulatory action at this stage would run contrary to the High Court’s standing instructions.
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.’
Another broadcaster said, “Every time TRAI revives the ad-cap issue despite the court’s stay, it throws the entire broadcast business into fresh uncertainty. You can’t plan inventory, revenue or programming when the regulatory goalpost keeps shifting.”
