India’s communications and broadcast disputes tribunal TDSAT yesterday admitted a petition of the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), which has challenged Prasar Bharati’s move to onboard linear TV channels on WAVES OTT platform, and issued notices to respondents, including the public broadcaster.

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) posted the case for hearing on April 29. The second respondent in the case is the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the nodal government organisation for issues related to media and entertainment.

The MSOs’ trade body, while challenging Prasar Bharati’s moves to have linear TV channels on its streaming service, had raised concerns over regulatory violations and an uneven playing field that could be created if such a move is allowed by the authorities.

According to details outlined in the petition, AIDCF has objected to Prasar Bharati’s notice inviting applications for onboarding channels on the WAVES platform, arguing that OTT platforms currently operate without a defined regulatory framework.

The federation contended that this regulatory gap is being leveraged to enable monetisation opportunities that bypass existing norms governing traditional broadcasting distribution.

At the core of the dispute is Clause 11(3)(f) of the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines, 2022, which mandates that broadcasters are permitted to downlink channels only if they provide signal decoders to recognised distribution platform operators such as multi-system operators (MSOs), DTH operators, HITS operators or IPTV platforms.

AIDCF has argued that OTT platforms are not recognised under this framework and therefore cannot legally receive such decoders.

The petition claims that Prasar Bharati’s initiative effectively encourages broadcasters to bypass these guidelines by onboarding their linear channels onto an OTT platform, which is not authorised under the existing policy regime.

It further alleges that any broadcaster providing signal decoders to the WAVES platform could be in violation of the conditions under which their downlinking permissions were granted.