THE
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION V. CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL
CASE NAME – The Secretary, Ministry of Information v.
Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr.
CITATIONS: 1995 AIR 1236, 1995 SCC
(2) 161
BENCH
1.
B SAWANT
2.
MOHAN
3.
P JEEVAN REDDY
INTRODUCTION ABOUT THE CASE
The Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) hosted the sixth international
cricket tournament in November 1993. This historic 1995 decision by India's
Supreme Court on air concerns a dispute between the Department of Information
and Broadcasting and the Bengal Cricket Association over whether or not the
Cricket Association had the authority to award a special television broadcast
in the private sector instead of Doordarshan. In response, the court is
examining whether Doordardhan would enjoy his control over the development of
global signals and should regulate their assets by telecommunications or
broadcasting.
This
disagreement occurred during the early days of economic liberation. This has
led to the influx of independent media into economic freedom that had
previously entered the AIR and Doordarshan state-owned media administration.
The issue was also the origin of what area of society and what body could be
a large part of Indian society. Claims made against Doordarshan, Doordarshan
argue that they have too many audiences reached and therefore a valid claim to
do it alone in terms of broadcasting.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The
Bengal Cricket Association, on March 15, 1993, wrote a letter to the
Director-General of Doordarshan stating that the sixth international cricket
tournament was scheduled for November 1993 as part of the diamond jubilee
celebrations. Bengal Cricket Association and Doordarshan to distribute the
nearest gift in two ways:
1.
Doordarshan aims to produce 'Host Host' Signal 'and live broadcast of all
tournament matches, or
2.
Any other organization will create a ‘Host Broadcast Signal’ and Doordarshan
will simply purchase the right to broadcast television in India.
The
CAB has particularly emphasized that, in any case, foreign television rights
will remain with the cricket association. CAB has agreed to the World
Production Establishment (WPE), which represents the interests of Trans World
International (TWI), on the rights to television broadcasts in all sports. The
CAB raised the issue and said donations received abroad, including TWI,
exceeded Rs 20 million. The CAB then came up with a set of suggestions.
§ The CAB has asked Doordarshan to submit a final
decision on the matter before 21 October.
§ On October Doordarshan informs the phrases and a
renewable response of 18 Modwhesho is not acceptable and DD has responded to
the cab
§ On November 8, the CAB recorded an application for
a summons to the Calcutta High Court, urging the respondents to be co-ordinated
in order to facilitate television broadcasting and broadcasting of all sports
and to provide all telecommunications and broadcasting offices.
§ On 15 November the DD filed an application for
contempt of the high court against the CAB and another.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The right to liberty is guaranteed by Art 19 (1)
(a) of the Constitution Access to information is part of you and includes the
receipt by telephone, Subject to the limits of the airwaves involved in this
regulation of public authority, this limit falls below 19 (2).
2. Cricket is a source of entertainment, the right to
freedom of speech and expression also comes within the limits of 19 (1). The
CAB and BCCI have the right to organize cricket matches in India with or
without foreign teams. Applicants have the right to broadcast the games online
by international organizations, claiming that it is a right under 19 (1) (a)
and that the authorities must issue such a license.
3. The defendant asserted that the airwaves were the
property of the public and could not be used for personal choice and pleasure.
19 (1) (a) does not include the right of airwaves and is a public place. Not
allowed as requested by the applicant.
Airwaves Public
Property
Radio
waves are a public asset and should be used to advance the public interest.
Their use must be regulated and regulated by the public sector in order to
benefit the public and prevent the violation of their rights. No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
nationality. As the media is public, the State needs to ensure that it is used
in a way that will enhance the freedom of expression of its citizens by
ensuring diversity of views and opinions.
PROBLEMS
1.
Did the
facilitator have the right to play in the air using an outdoor institution?
2.
Do public
institutions regulate the production and distribution of landmarks or their
rejection?
3.
Do wind waves or
waves fall under a public domain or public property?
4.
Can a government
agency like DD claim to be the broadcaster in charge of all events, whether the
event is produced or organized by him or anyone else in the country?
ARGUMENTS
Argument
of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
· Differences
in the effect of the rights granted under section 19 (1) (a) to persons who
wish the media to consider their views, including (i) broadcasters and (ii)
editors. In connection with the event (iii) the viewer (IV) demands a
television signal and a frequency connection produced elsewhere in India.
· The
broadcasters themselves cannot access it without a broadcasting license. There
are no standard claims regarding broadcasting licenses. It should be used as a
limited resource to provide maximum profit.
· The
right to watch television / radio is subject to certain environmental
restrictions, but Section 19 (2) applies to governmental regulations. The
purpose of the license is not to limit the presentation of ideas, but to
control and order the rare resources by placing people who are not rich enough
to control the media to ensure complete enjoyment.
· Television
dominance alone does not restrict the dominance of ideologies alone, otherwise,
the fact that access to the media is through government officials violates
Section 19 (1).
Argument
of Cricket Association of Bengal
· 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 waves were to be considered public
property. Their use must be monitored and regulated by government agencies for
the benefit of the public and the prevention of their rights. Because social
media involves the use of radio waves, this feature imposes restrictions on the
use of radio waves as it does on other social media.
2. The Supreme Court has found that the right to
communicate and to receive information is a form of the right to freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
Citizens have a basic right to access information and to access television
broadcasts for this purpose. Radio waves have contributed to law enforcement
and can be monitored and controlled by government agencies. This restriction
was imposed on the state of state ownership with respect to the use of social
media in relation to the limits of freedom of speech and expression in
accordance with Section 19 (2) of the Constitution.
3. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal
government will immediately take steps to establish a private and public entity
that represents all structures and interests of the public in order to regulate
and regulate the use of radio waves.
4. The Supreme Court stated that differences in
opinion, opinion, and opinion cannot be guaranteed by a single individual,
whether governmental or individual, party, or organization. “Private
broadcasters are more likely to violate citizens' freedom of speech than the
state-owned media, as stipulated in the law. The media should be controlled by
the public, not the government. This mark is mentioned in Article 19 (1) (a)”of
the constitution.
CONCLUSION
Knowledge
is power. Knowledge is the basis of knowledge. It is not wrong to say that the
information is directly related to authorization. Empowering the people in a
democracy is essential for good governance.
There
is an inseparable relationship between media freedom and social stability, that
is, the stability of the national government.
The
right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and
communicate information. In order to ensure the citizen's right to freedom of
expression, citizens must exercise different views and opinions in all public affairs.
An effective democracy takes "informed" citizens. Private
broadcasters are at greater risk for citizen free speech than for the
state-controlled media. The media should be controlled by the public, not the
government. This mark is mentioned in article 19 (1) (a). The law should
present issues, ideas, and opinions in a balanced way, and should ensure the
multiplicity and diversity of ideas and opinions.
0 Comments