LexTHE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. versus CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND ' . BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. v. CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL AND ORS. AND VICE VERSA FEBRUARY 9, 1995 [P.B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.) C Constitution of India'-Articles 19( 1)( a), 19(2)--Freedom of speech and expression-Right to telecast live events over airwaves through satellite uplink facility-Whether part of freedom of speeclt-Held, per curiam; yes-Held fur- ther, as airwaves are public property the n'ght is subject to in-built restrictions. Constitution of lnditr-Articles 19(1) (a), 19(2)-Whether the right to D telecast events· includes right to agency of one's choice-Right to establish private telecasting facilities-Held, (Per Majority) the organisers had a right to sell the telecasting rights to any agen~eld, (Per minority) public broadcasting is implicit in the right, private broadcasting is noHn the absence of a licence, the organisers· had no right to telecast by an agency of E their choice. Constitution of Inditr-Articles 19(1) (a), 19(2), 14-Telegraph Act, 1885 S.4(1)-Reasonable restrictions on the right-Organisers of event selling telecasting rights to foreign agency-Organisers not obtaining licence for. telecast but paying charges for uplinking facility-No demand made for F utilising frequencies controlled by government agencies-Government agen- cies refusing licence or permission to telecast-Whether refusal of licence to telecast malafide and arbitrary-Held (per Majority) Doordarshan could not reJu,se to telecast particularly since there was no lack of frequency; refusal could be only on grounds specified in· Article 19 (2)--Per minority-The G objection to a foreign agency telecasting even without a licence was not . arbitrary or malafide. Constitution of India Article 19(1) (a), 19(2)-Telecastingfrom Indian soil- Whether monopoly in favour of Doordarshan violative of the freedom of speeclt-Held, (per minority), Monopoly unacceptabl~leld (per curiam) H control to be in hands of an autonomous public C01JJOration. 1036 _( MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKEf ASSN. OF BENGAL 1037 Constitution of Indi~Article 19(1) (a}-Telecasting of events by or- A ,Ir ganisers through foreign agency-Whether the right is in fact a commercial right traceable to Article 19 (1) (g)-He/d (Per Majority) organisers are not _, seeking to enforce a commercial right-Held, (per minority) the right is sought really by the foreign agency and the ref ore question of violation of such right under article 19 (l)(a) does not arise. B The Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) organised an international cricket tournament in which India and four other countries participated. ~ -I-. The CAB wrote to Doordarsban (DD), the official television network, in March 1993 inviting an offer for the amount they would be willing to pay CAB for live television coverage of the cricket matches in either of the c alternatives : where Doordarshan would create the host broadcaster signal and undertake live telecast or where any other party would create the host broadcaster signal and DD would purchase the rights to telecast in India. CAB made it clear that in either situation CAB would retain the foreign 1V rights. By a subsequent letter CAB informed DD that they were D agreeable to DD creating the host broadcaster signal and granting to it the exclusive right for India without Star 1V getting it and that the charges for the same would be US$ 800,000. Doordarshan replied quoting a figure of Rs. 1 crore. CAB decided to sell the worldwide 1V rights to The Trans World International (1WI) a foreign 1V network. On October 18, 1993 E CAB informed Doordarshan that it was expecting an offer of at least Rs. 2 crores from DD and that they had received much higher offers from agencies abroad including 1WI. However, it offered to DD the right to telecast some of the matches directly and jointly With 1WI on condition that DD would allow advertising time which CAB would at liberty to sell to advertisers. DD rejected this offer stating that they would never agree F to any joint production with 1WI. CAB then offered to sell to Doordarshan the rights of telecast on payment of access fees. DD responded stating that CAB had to pay Rs. S lakhs per match as technical charges and that DD would have exclusive rights for the signals generated. With no agreement materialising, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.