A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of regulations limiting television channels to a maximum of 12 minutes of advertisements per clock hour, dismissing a bunch of 17 petitions filed by general entertainment channels, news broadcasters and regional television channels.The verdict means television channels will continue to be subject to restrictions on the amount of advertising they can carry in an hour. The court held that the framework is intended to protect viewers from excessive commercial interruptions and ensure a more satisfactory viewing experience.The ruling came as the Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and Regulation 3 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Regulations, 2012, as amended in 2013.The court ruled that TRAI acted within its statutory authority in imposing the “per clock hour” ceiling through the regulations to operationalise the advertisement cap prescribed under the Rules. “The per clock hour advertisement cap is a valid exercise of its regulatory power relating to QoS (Quality of Service),” the Bench held, concluding that the framework struck “a proportionate balance between broadcaster rights and the public interest in efficient and fair use of broadcast spectrum”.The petitions had challenged the constitutional validity of the regime fixing a 10+2 minute ceiling per hour — 10 minutes for commercial advertisements and two minutes for self-promotional content. The court noted that the principal challenge was not to the overall 12-minute limit itself, but to the requirement that the cap be calculated on a “per clock hour” basis rather than as an aggregate limit over a longer period.The broadcasters had contended that the framework violated their rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and adversely affected their ability to schedule advertisements and maximise advertising revenue.Rejecting the challenge, the court held that the broadcasters’ grievance regarding advertising losses lay principally in the realm of business freedom under Article 19(1)(g) and not the core guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a).”Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution does not guarantee profitability, and certainly not a right to monetise public property beyond reasonable structural limits imposed in the common good,” the Bench observed.The court held that the 12-minute cap was a neutral, time-based regulation that did not restrict programme content but merely regulated the quantity of advertising time. Referring to the statutory framework, the Bench noted that broadcasting and cable services were brought within TRAI’s regulatory ambit through a 2004 notification issued under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. It held that TRAI’s powers under Sections 11 and 36 of the Act extended to quality-of-service standards, including viewer experience.The court rejected the broadcasters’ contention that TRAI’s role was confined to technical or interconnection issues and did not extend to advertisement duration. The regulations were intended to reduce excessive commercial breaks, prevent artificial clustering of advertisements and ensure a more rational distribution of advertising load, thereby securing an uninterrupted and satisfactory viewing experience for consumers.The court was also of the view that the public character of spectrum and airwaves were scarce public resources held in trust by the state. Their regulation, it said, must align with constitutional principles aimed at ensuring the common good and preventing concentration of resources.The regulatory framework furthered those objectives by preventing excessive commercial exploitation and ensuring equitable use of broadcast spectrum. “Excessive or uneven commercial intrusion is not merely an economic concern, rather it constitutes a direct impairment of the right of consumers to a fair and reasonable viewing experience,” the judgment said.Turning down the challenge under Article 14, the court held that the distinction between programme content and advertisement time was intelligible and bore a rational nexus with the objective of preventing over-commercialisation and protecting consumer interests.