The broadcasters had pointed out that their primary revenue source is advertising and the time ceiling interferes with it, undermines the broadcasters’ economic viability and impacts their right to commercial speech.

The Centre, on the other hand, had argued that since advertisements is a major source of revenue for broadcasters, they deliberately lengthen the duration of commercial breaks, thus reducing the quality of viewing experience. It was also argued that the broadcasters do not have unfettered right to access or use airwaves which is scarce public property.

The bench, recording the well-settled position of law that spectrum and airwaves constitute scarce, finite public resources which vest in the people, and are held by the State in a fiduciary capacity as trustee, reasoned that “broadcasters cannot claim an unfettered right to exploit spectrum for commercial purposes,” and thus the state can regulate the manner and extent of such usage.

“The measures taken by TRAI to impose a temporal limit on advertisements, in order to ensure that no material resource is exploited for excessive commercial gain by broadcasters, bear a proximate and rational nexus to the constitutional mandate of ensuring that material resources of the community are distributed and utilised so as to subserve the common good,” the court held.

The bench reasoned, “Once broadcasters avail themselves of the privilege of utilising public spectrum under statutory licence, they cannot disclaim the corresponding obligation to adhere to conditions designed to regulate its use in the public interest. The imposition of a temporal ceiling on advertisements is one such condition, directed not at suppressing expression, but at structuring the use of a public resource in a manner consistent with viewer welfare.”