New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Sakshi TV (M/s Indira Television Limited), which alleged that the Andhra Pradesh government was illegally blocking its broadcast across the state. The Court ruled that since the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has already seized of the matter, parallel proceedings under Article 32 cannot be maintained.

The Bench, comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, disposed of the plea, observing that the tribunal is the appropriate statutory forum for resolving disputes between broadcasters and state authorities or Multi-System Operators (MSOs).

Sakshi TV, a channel owned by the family of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, had approached the Apex Court alleging that the current state administration was coercing cable operators to black out the channel. The channel argued that this was a violation of the freedom of press and the public's right to information.

The counsel for Sakshi TV urged the Supreme Court to keep the writ petition pending, arguing that the grievance raised was "much wider" than a simple carriage dispute and involved fundamental rights violations by the State machinery.

The Supreme Court, however, remained firm on the principle of "exhaustion of alternative remedies." Justice Narasimha pointed out that pursuant to the Court's earlier nudge, the TDSAT had already listed the case for hearing on February 12, 2026.

"Our endeavour was to ensure that you get that remedy. It will not be proper to continue the same matter here after the Tribunal's jurisdiction is invoked... You will have an appeal against that."

The Bench clarified that it was not dismissing the merits of the allegations but simply redirecting the channel to the specialized fact-finding body. The Court left all legal questions open for Sakshi TV to raise before the TDSAT.

This order reinforces the Supreme Court’s reluctance to bypass specialized tribunals even when constitutional rights like "Freedom of Press" are invoked. By sending the matter to TDSAT, the Court is emphasizing that technical disputes regarding signal signals, cable carriage, and MSO obligations—even if politically motivated—must first pass through the expert regulatory body before reaching constitutional courts.