LexUNION OF INDIA versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 7S.C.R. 483 UNION OF INDIA v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10732-33 of2017) AUGUST 22, 2017 (RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.) A B Sports - Cricket - Telecasting/Broadcasting - Live feed of a cricket match or other sporting events of national importance - Retelecast of the signals shared by respondent no.3 and 4 with Prasar Bharati by Cable operators - Held: Under s.3 of the Sports C Act, 2007, the live feed received by Prasar Bharati from content rights owners or holders is only for the purpose of re-transmission of the said signals on its own terrestrial and DTH networks and not to Cable Operators so as to enable the Cable TV operators to reach such consumers who have already subscribed to a cable network - D Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 - s.3 - Cable Television Networks (Regulation} Act, 1995 - s.8 - Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 - s.12(3)(c). Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 - Object of its legislation - Discussed. · · - Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 - Object of its legislation - Discussed. Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 - Object of its legislation - Discussed. E Dismissing the appeals, the Co_urt F HELD: 1.1 Section 12(3)(c) of the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 enables the Prasar Bharati "to negotiate for purchase of, or otherwise acquire, programmes and rights or privileges in respect of sports and other events, films, serials, occasions, meetings, functions or incidents of public interest-for 13 broadcasting and G ~,.,, establish procedures for the allocation of such programmes, rights or privileges to the services. (Para 13)(490-CI 1.2 The Cable Act was enacted in the y!!ar 1995 to regulate the operation of cable television network which had come into India around that time. Cable television was a new experience H 483 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. A for the Indian viewers who, overnight, had access to a large ·number of foreign channels carrying different kinds and forms of entertainment and information. While it is correct that some of the channels available on cable television network were lndianized in content, there was a apprehension, and perhaps B justified, that the new tend and upsurge may make Doordarshan and its regional channels extinct resulting in dissemination of awareness on national issues. This is evident from the report of the Standing Committee to whom the Cable T.V. Network (regulation) Bill 1993 was referred to. This is why Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995 was enacted, namely, to obligate Cable TV C operators to carry news and information concerning the developments of the country, Government Policies and other such related matters even to all such households who may have availed of cable services. In fact, transmission of Doordarshan channels by Cable Operators is always a complimentary part of any bouquet D of services that a Cable Operator may make available to a consumer. [Para 27)(498-C-FJ 1.3 The Sports Act, 2007 which is a later enactment had altogether a different object for its enactment, namely, to provide access to the largest number of listeners and viewers, on a free to air basis, of sporting events of national importance through E mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 is a significant provision to further the objective behind the enactment of the Sports Act, 2007. Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 curtails or abridges the p rights of a content rights owner or holder and television or radio broadcasting service provider, as may be. Sharing of revenue ·between the content rights owner or holder and the Prasar Bharati envisaged by Section 3(2) of the Sports Act, 2007 would hardly redeem the situation to take the Sports Act, 2007 out of the category of expropriatory legislation. Section 3 of the Sports G Act, 2007, therefore, has to be interpreted very strictly. The plain language of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 makes it clear that the obligation to share cast on the content rights owner or holder, etc. with Prasar Bharati is to enable the Prasar Bharati to transmit the same on "its terrestrial and DTH networks". If the H legislative intent was to allow Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 UNION OF INDIA v. BOARD OF CON
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.