"Either you implement the law (Cable TV Networks Regulation Act) or abrogate it," Justice Vikramajit Sen said when Additional Solicitor General (ASG) P P Malhotra sought time till December 31 on behalf of the to take a decision on the issue.
The court said the issue under dispute was covered under List-I (Union List) and the states did not have any role to play in it and, therefore, the Centre should not have left it to the states to take a decision in this regard. "Statute has prescribed it and you must implement it," the court observed.
In fact, the ASG tried to impress upon the court that the government was trying to devise ways and means to protect what he called "public interest" before implementing CAS.
To the ASG's submission that the MSOs might charge exorbitant amount for pay channels, the court said "leave it to market forces".
"Why not allow the market forces to determine the rate? Market is the best leveller. Better channels will be widely subscribed," Justice Vikramajit Sen said.
The court is hearing a petition filed by Hathway Cable Datacom's petition seeking direction to the Centre to implement CAS.
The court adjourned the case to September 27 as the ASG said he would like to file a written synopsis. Senior Counsel Ram Jethmalani has already completed arguments on behalf of the petitioner.
The implementation of Conditional Access System for watching satellite TV channels in the country was hanging fire due to political differences within the government, Jethmalani had earlier submitted before the court.
Despite having taken the decision "in public interest", the Centre has failed to implement it due to political differences over the issue, he had said.
Before amending the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the Legislature had satisfied itself that CAS was in public interest and Delhi and Madras High Courts had also conclusively held that the government cannot recall its notification on implementation of CAS, Jethmalani had argued.
The judgment had become final and binding as there was no appeal pending against the same, he had pointed out.
The senior counsel had submitted that it was due to the government's decision that the Multi Service Operators like the petitioner invested Rs 800 crore (Rs 8 billion) in set top boxes and it could not be allowed to delay it further.
TRAI counsel Meet Malhotra said the regulatory body had submitted its recommendations way back in October 2004 and now it was for the government to implement it.