CASE COMMENTARY
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, GOVT. OF INDIA V.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL
Appellant - Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India
Respondent- Cricket Association of Bengal
Citation - (1995) 2 SCC 161
INTRODUCTION
A disagreement took place between the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Cricket
Association of Bengal over whether or not the Cricket Association was entitled
to grant exclusive television broadcasting to a private organization instead of
a Doordarshan. In response, the court examines whether or not Doordardhan could
enjoy its control over the creation of terrestrial signals and should dominate
their possession over telecasting or not telecasting them.
FACTS
The Cricket Association of Bengal
(CAB) hosted the sixth nation International Cricket tournament in November
1993.The Cricket Association of the Bengal on 15 March 1993, has written a
letter to the Director-General of Doordarshan stating that the country’s sixth
international cricket tournament is scheduled to take place in November 1993 as
part of its diamond jubilee celebration. Bengal Cricket Association and
Doordarshan to submit an intimate offer for any two alternatives:
1.
Doordarshan
intent to generate ‘Host Broadcaster Signal’ and also live streaming of every
tournament match, or
2.
Any
other party would create the ‘Host Broadcaster Signal’ and Doordarshan would
simply buy the right to television broadcasting in India.
CAB emphasized in particular that, in either case, the
foreign tv rights would remain with the cricket body. CAB agreed with the World
Production Establishment (WPE), representing the interest of Trans World
International (TWI), for telecast rights to all the matches. CAB raised the
issue and stated that the offers received from abroad, and from TWI, were much
higher than Rs 20 million. After that CAB came up with a set of suggestions.
●
CAB
requested Doordarshan to convey the final decision in the matter before 21
October.
●
On
27 October Doordarshan informed CAB that the phrases and situation of its
renewed provide of 18 October have been now no longer acceptable and DD
responded to CAB that they might now no longer take indicators from TWI, an
overseas organization.
●
On 8
November CAB recorded a summons request within the Calcutta Tall Court
imploring, that the respondents should be coordinated to supply telecast and
broadcast of all matches and give all offices for telecasting and broadcasting
of the matches.
●
On
15th November DD requested a scorn request within the high court against CAB
and another.
Issues
1.
Did
the organizer have the right to air through a foreign institution?
2.
Do
government agencies monopolize the generation and broadcasting of terrestrial
signals or their rejection?
3.
Is
either the airwaves or frequencies come under the public domain or public
property?
4.
Can
a government agency like DD claim to be the host broadcaster for all events,
whether the event is produced or organized by themselves or someone else in the
country?
Arguments
Argument of Appellants
The difference in
the impact of the rights conferred under section 19(1) (a) on persons wishing
the media to evaluate their views, including (i) broadcasters and (ii)
organizers have. With respect to the event (iii) the viewer (IV) seeks a
television signal and frequency connection generated elsewhere in India.
Broadcasters
themselves do not have access to it without a broadcasting license. There are
no general claims about broadcast licenses. It either should be used as a
limited resource to provide maximum benefit.
The right to
watch television/radio is subject to certain natural restrictions, but Article
19 (2) applies to the restrictions imposed by the government. The purpose of
the license is not to limit the expression of ideas, but to regulate and order
scarce resources by including people who are not wealthy enough to dominate the
media to ensure optimal enjoyment.
The monopoly of
television broadcasts does not in itself prohibit the monopoly of ideas,
otherwise, the fact that access to the media is through state authorities
violates Article 19 (1).
Argument of Respondent
The right to host
a sporting event rests with the legal entity to which it belongs, in which case
the legal entity is its member, including the Board of Control for Cricket in
India and the Cricket Association of Bengal. The right to create an event
includes the right to edit the event the way your company chooses. This
includes the right to broadcast and not broadcast the event.
BCCI and CAB had
the right to produce, broadcast, transmit the event, either directly or through
an agent, under Section 19 (1) (a). The content of the rights under Article 19
(1) (a) is also sufficient to protect the viewer’s information. In this case,
the viewer and producer had the right to broadcast the event. Given these two
rights; the telecommunications bureau was obliged to allow the event to be
broadcast.
Licensing under
Section 4 of the Act is a regulatory measure and does not authorize the MIB to
deny the Board of Control for Cricket in India/Cricket Association of Bengal a
license to broadcast and broadcast sporting events or impose conditions
unrelated to Section 19(2).
The Constitution
does not provide for monopoly in section 19(1) (a). Therefore, Doordarshan
cannot make the same claim, and Doordarshan’s claims of commercial interests or
exclusive rights in the generation of signals cannot be grounds for refusal of
approval under section 4 of the Act.
Judgement
1. Radio waves and
frequencies had to be treated as public goods. Their use should be monitored
and regulated by government agencies for the public good and to prevent the
invention of their rights. Because electronic media involves the use of radio
waves, this factor places restrictions on the use of radio waves as it does
with other public property.
2. The Supreme Court
has found that the right to communicate and receive information is a form of
the right to freedom of expression and freedom of expression guaranteed by
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. Citizens have the basic right to receive
information and to access television broadcasts for this purpose. Radio waves
have been involved in law enforcement and can be monitored and regulated by
government agencies. This restriction was imposed due to the nature of state
ownership in relation to the use of electronic media in relation to
restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in accordance with Article
19(2) of the Constitution.
3. The Supreme Court
has ruled that the central government will take immediate steps to create an
independent and autonomous government agency that represents all sectors and
interests of society to control and regulate the use of radio waves.
4. The Supreme Court has stated that diversity of
opinions, views, and ideas cannot be guaranteed in an environment controlled by
a monopoly, whether it belongs to the state or to another person, group, or
organization. “Private broadcasters may be more likely to infringe upon
citizens’ freedom of speech than state-run media, as outlined in the statute.
Broadcasting media should be controlled by the public, not by the government.
This mark is implied in Article 19(1) (a)” of the constitution.
CONCLUSION
The judgement of
the court is justifiable as the radio waves are public property and should be used to promote the public
interest. Their use must be controlled and regulated by the public sector for
the benefit of the public and to prevent interference with their rights. No one
has the right to use them at his choice and his discretion and for his choice,
including profits either can be used by citizens for broadcasting and should
promote freedom of expression for its citizens by ensuring a diversity of
opinions and ideas.
0 Comments