DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ! SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. ETC.

1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A (a) That unless BCCI or CAB televises the matches in collabora- tion with DD, a license shall not be granted. ·

(b) The DD alone will be the host broadcaster of the signals and. BCCl/CAB .or its agency must take the signal from DD alone and

B (c) Unless the BCCI or CAB accepts the terms and conditions imposed by DD, the production of signal and transmission and telecast thereof shall not be permitted.

It is further contended that there is no monopoly in relation to what viewer must today view and the American decision relied upon on behalf of MIB have no bearing on the present state of affairs, Satellite can beam directly on to television sales through dish antenna, all programmes whose ·footprints are receivable in the country. Further, any one can record a programme in India and then telecast it by sending the cassette out as is being done in the case of several private TV channels. Various foreign news organizations such as the BBC and the CNN record directly Indian events and then transmit their own signals after a while to be telecast by their organizations.

Further, the non-availability of channel is of no consequence in the present days of technological development. Any person intending to telecast/broadcast an event can do so directly even without routing signal through the channels of DD or MIB. What is required to ensure is that the ·secured channel are not interfered with or overlapped. On account of the availability of innumerable satellites in the Geo-Stationary Orbit of the Hemisphere, the signals can directly be uplinked through any of the p available transponders of satellite whose footprint can be received back through appropriate electronic device. As a matter of fact, beaming zone of only 3 satellites parked 3000 Kms. above the surface of the earth can cover the entire Hemisphere. Moreover, due to technological develop- ments, frequency is becoming thinner and thinner and as a result, availability of frequencies has increased enormously and at present there are millions of frequencies available. In order to ensure that none of the footprints of any satellite overlaps the footprint of other satellite, each and every satellite is parked at a different degree and angle. Hence, there is no resorce crunch or in-built restriction on the availability of electronic +--- media, as contended by MIB. In this connection it is also pointed out that there is a difference in the right spelt out by Article 19 (1) (a) of our

MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL (SAWANT, J.] 1093

Constitution and that spelt out by the First Amendment of the American A Constitution.

It is also contended that in no other country the right to televise or broadcast is in the exclusive domain of any particular body. In this connec- tion, a reference is mode to various instances in other countries where the host broadcaster has been other than the domestic network, which instan- B ces are not controverted. It is also urged that there is no policy of the Government of India as urged on behalf of the MIB that telecasting of sporting events would be within the exclusive domain and purview of DD/MIB who alone would market their rights to other authorities in whole or in part. It is pointed out that the extract from the minutes of the meeting C of the Committee of Secretaries held on 12th November, 1993 relied upon by the MIB for the purpose is not a proof of such policy. The said minutes are 'executive decision' of a few secretaries of the various departments of the Government.

D It is also urged that even public interest or interest of general public cannot be a ground for refusal or for the imposition of restrictions or for claiming exclusivity in any manner whatsoever. Such restriction, if imposed will be violative of Article 19(1)(a). To suggest that power to grant a license,, shall not be exercised under any circumstances because of the policy of the Government, is arbitrary inasmuch as the power conferred is not being E used for the purpose for which it has been conferred.

It is then contended that both BCCI and CAB are non-profit making organizations and their sole object is to promote the game of cricket in this country and for that purpose not only proper and adequate infrastructures p are required to be erected, build and maintained, but also huge expenses have to be incurred to improve the game which includes, amongst others, grant of subsidies and grants tO the Member Associations, upgradation of infrastructure, training of cricketeers from school level, payments to the cricketeers, insurance and benevolent funds for the cricketeers, training of G umpires, payments of foreign participants, including guarantee money etc. The quantum of amount to be spent for all these purposes has increased during the course of time. These expenses are met from the amounts earned by the BCCI and CAB since they have no other continuous source of income. The earnings of BCCI and CAB are basically from arranging various tournaments, in stadia advertisements and licence fee for permit- H

1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A ting telecast and censorship. At least 70 per cent of the income earned through the advertisements 'and generated by the TV network while ~ telecasting of the matches, is paid to the organizer apart from the minimum guaranteed money as is apparent from the various agreements entered by and between BCCl/CAB as well as DD with other networks. The DD in effect desires to snatch away the right of telecast for its own commercial interest through advertisement, and at the same time also demand money from the organizers as and by way of production fee.

Merely because an organization may earn profit from an activity whose character is predominantly covered under Article 19(1) (a), it would not convert the activity into one involving Article 19(1)(g). The test of predominant character of the activity has to be applied. It has also to be ascertained as to who is the person who is utilizing the activity. If a businessman were to put in an advertisement for simpliciter commercial activity, it may render the activity, the one covered by Article 19 (1) (g). D But even newspapers or a film telecast or sports event telecast will be protected by Article 19 (1) (a) and will not become an activity under Article 19(1)(a) merely because it earns money from advertisements in the process. Similarly, if the cricket match is telecast and profit is earned by r ·. the licensing of telecasting right and receipts from advertisements, it will be an essential element for utilization and fulfillment of its object. The said E object cannot be achieved without such revenue.

Rebutting the argument that the organisation of sports is an industry and, therefore, monopoly under Article 19(6) is permissible, it is pointed ' out that even if, in matters relating to business and profession, the State F can' create'monopoly'under Article 19 (6), it can still not infringe Article ' 19(1)(a), while the State may monopolise the textile industry, it cannot prohibit the publication of books and articles on textiles. . . ~ I.

It is also contended that the exercise of right claimed in the present case is by BCCI/CAB and its office bearers who are citizens of India. G ·Merely because foreign equipment and technical and personnel are used as Collaborators to exercise".the said right more effectively, it does not dilute the'·co~tent of Article 'i⁹ (1) (a) nor does it become an exercise of +-- riglit'bla'n.oi:J.':.citi.Ze'ns:'fu this connection, it is emphasised that the DD is ~so7iisiiigWorldtel, a foreign agency. Most of the newspapers in India are printed on machines imported from aboard. A newspaper may also have:a., H . tinu . · ·~· • "'

I MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKEI' ASSN. OF BENGAL (SAWANT, J.) 1095

foreigner as its manager. However, that does not take away the right of the newspaper under Article 19 (1) (a). They are only instances of technical collaboration. Apart from its, every citizen has a right to information as the same cannot be taken away on grounds urged by the MIB.

17Copy pinpoint17. It will be apparent from the contentions advanced on behalf of MIB that their main thrust is that the right claimed by the BCCl/CAB is not the right of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), but a commer- cial right or the right to trade under Article 19(1) (g). The contention is based mainly on two grounds viz., there is no free speech element in the telecast of sports and secondly, the primary object of the BCCI/CAB in seeking to telecast the cricket matches is not to educate and entertain the viewer but to make money.

It. can hardly be denied that sport is an expression of self. In an athletic or individual event, the individual expresses himself through his individual feat. In a team event such as cricket, football, hockey etc., there is both individual and collective expression. It may be true that what is protected by Article 19 (1) (a) is an expression of t~ought and feeling and not of the physical or intellectual process or skill. It is also true that a person desiring to telecast sports events when he is not himself a par- ticipant in the game, does not seek to exercise his right of self expression. However, the right to freedom of spe~ch and expression also includes the right to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right to be educated, informed and entertained. The former is the right of the telecaster and the latter of the viewers. The right to telecast sporting event will therefore also mclude the right to educate and inform the present and the prospective sportsmen interested in the particular game and also to inform and entertain the lovers of the game. Hence, when a telecaster desires to telecast a sporting event, it is incorrect to say that the free speech element is absent from his right. The degree of the element will depend upon the character of the telecaster who claims the right. An organiser such as the BCCI or CAB in the present case which are indisputably devoted to the promotion of the game of cricket, can9ot be placed in the same scale as the business organisations whose only intention is to make as large a profit as can be made by telecasting the game. Whereas it can be said that there is hardly any free speech element in the right to telecast when it is asserted by the latter, it will be a warped and cussed view to take when the former claim the same right, and contend that in claiming the H

1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

\ A right to telecast the 'cricket matches organised by them, they are asserting . the right to make business out of it. The sporting organisations such as BCCl/CAB which are interested in promoting the sport or sports are under I an obligation to organise the sports events and can legitimately be accused of failing in their duty to do so. The promotion of sports also includes its popularization through all legitimate means. For this purpose, they are duty bound to select the best means and methods to reach the maximum number of listeners and viewers. Since at present, radio and TV are the most efficacious methods, thanks to the technological development, the sports organisations like BCCl/CAB Will be neglecting their duty in not exploring the said media and in not employing the best means available to them to popularise the game. That while pursuing their objective of popularising the sports by electing the best available means of doing so, they incidentally earn some revenue, will not convert either them into commercial organisa- tions or the right claimed by them to explore the said means, · into a commercial right or interest. It must further be remembered that sporting · D organisations such as BCCl/CAB in the present case, have not been established only to organise the sports events or to broadcast or telecast them. The organisation of sporting events is only a part of their various objects, as pointed out earlier and even when they organise the events, they are primarily to educate the sportsmen, to promote and popularise the sports and also to inform and entertain the viewers. The organisation of E such events involves huge cosfs. Whether surplus is left after defraying all the expenses, is ploughed back by them in the organisation itself. It will be taking a deliberately distorted view of the right claimed by such organisa- tions to telecast the sporting event to call it an assertion of a commercial right. Yet the MIB has chosen to advance such contention which ean only ,,.P be described as most unfortunate. It is needless to state that we are, in the circumstances, unable to accept the ill-advised argument. It does no credit to the Ministry or to the Government as a whole to denigrate the sporting organisations such as ·BCCI/CAB by placing them on par with business organisations sponsoring sporting events for profit and the access claimed by them to telecasting as assertion of commercial interest. G The second contention of MIB is based upon the propositions laid down by the US Supreme Court, viz., there are inherent limitations im- posed .on the right to telecast/broadcast as there is scarcity of resou~ces, +- ./ i.e.. of frequencies,· and therefore the need to use them in the interest of the largest number. There is also a pervasive presence of electronic media

MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL (SAWANT, J.) 1097

such as TV. It has a greater impact on the minds of the people of all ages and strata of the society necessitating the prerequisite of licensing of the programmes. It is also contended on that account that the licensing of frequencies and consequent regulation of telecasting/broadcasting would not be a matter governed by Article 19 (2). Where as Article 19(2) applies - to restrictions imposed by the State, the inherent limitations on the right to telecast/broadcast are imposed by nature.

In the first instance, it must be remembered that all the decisions of the US Supreme Court relied upon in support of this contention, are on the right of the private broadcasters to establish their own broadcasting stations by claiming a share in or access to the airwaves or frequencies. In C the United States, there is no Central Government-owned or controlled broadcasting centre. There is only a Federal Commission to regulate broadcasting stations which are all owned by private broadcasters. Second- ly, the American Constitution does not explicitly state the restrictions on the right of freedom of speech and expression as our Constitution does. D Hence, the decisions in question have done on more than impliedly reading 1' such restrictions. The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, therefore, in the context of the right claimed by the private broadcasters are irrelevant for our present purpose. In the present case what is claimed is a right to an access to telecasting specific events for a limited duration and during limited hours of the day. There is no demand for owning or controlling a E frequency. Secondly, unlike in the cases in the US which came for con- sideration before the US Supreme Court, the right to share in the frequen- cy is not claimed without a license. Thirdly, the right to use a frequency for a limited duration is not claimed by a business organisation to make profit and lastly and this is an important aspect of the present case, to which no reply has been given by the MIB, there is no claim to any frequency owned and controlled by the Government. What is claimed is permission to uplink the signal created by the organiser of the events to a foreign satellite.

There is no doubt that since the airwaves/frequencies are a public property and are also limited, they have to be used in the best interest of the society and this can be done either by a central authority by establishing its own broadcasting network or regulating the grant of licences to other agencies, including the private agencies. What is further, the electronic media is the most powerful media both because of its audio-visual impact, H

1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A and its widest reach covering the section of the society whether the print .media does not reach. The right to use the airwaves and the co.ntent of the programmes, therefore, needs regulation for balancing it and as well as to prevent monopoly of information and views relayed, which is a potential danger flowing from the concentration of the right to broadcast/telecast in B the hands either of a central agency or of few private affluent broadcasters. That is why the need to have a central agency representative of all sections of the societY free from control both of the Government and the dominant influential sections of the socif,!ty. This is not disputed. But to contend that on that account the restrictions to be imposed on the right under Article 19 (l)(a) should be in addition to those permissible under Article 19 (2) C and dictated by the use of public resources in the best interests of the society at large, is to misconceive both the content of the freedom.of speech and expression and the problems posed by the element of public property in, and the alleged scarcity of, the frequencies as well as by the wider reach of the media. If the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to disseminate information to as wide a section of the population as is possible, the access which enable the right to be so exercised is also an integral part of the said right. The wider range of circulation of information or its greater impact cannot restrict the content of the right nor can it justify its denial. The virtues of the electronic media cannot become its enemies. It may warrant a greater regulation over licensing and control and vigilance on the content of the programme telecast.. However, this control can only be exercised within the framework of Article 19 (2) and the dictates of public interests. To plead for other grounds is to plead for unconstitutional measures. It is further difficult to appreciate such conten- F tion on the part of the Government in this country when they have a complete control over the fre9uencies and the content of the programme to be telecast. They control the sole agency of telecasting. They are also armed with the provisions of Article 19(2) and the powers of pre-censor- ship under the Cinematograph Act and Rules. The only limitations on the said right is, therefore, the limitation of resources and, the need to use them for the benefit of all. When, however, there are surplus or unlimited resources and the public interests so demand or in any case do not prevent telecasting, the validity of the argument based on limitation of resources disappears. It is true that to own a frequency for the purposes of broad- +- . c:aSting is a costly affair and even when there are surplus or unlimited frequencies, only the affluent few will own them and will be in a position

MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT,J.] 1()99

to use it to subserve their own interest by manipulating news and views. A That also poses a danger to the freedom of speech and expression of the have-nots by denying them the truthful information on all sides of an issue which is so necessary to form a sound view on any subject. That is why the doctrine of fairness which is evolved in the U.S. in the context of the private broadcasters licensed to share the limited frequencies with the central B agency like the FCC to regulate the prograinming. But this phenomenon occurs even in the case of the print media of all the countries. Hence the body like the Press Council of India which is empowered to enforce, however imperfectly, the right to reply. The print media further enjoys as in our country, freedom from pre-censorship unlike the electronic media. c As stated earlier, we are not concerned in the present case with lhe right of the private broadcasters, but only with the limited right for telecast- ing particular cricket matches for particular hours of the day and for a particular period. It is not suggested that the said right is objectionable on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 19 (2) or is against the proper use of the public resources. The only objection taken against the refusal to grant the said right is that of the limited resources. That abjection is completely misplaced in the present case since the claim is not made on any of the frequencies owned, controlled and utilised by the DD. The right claimed is for uplinking the signal generated by the .BCCl/CAB to a satellite owned by another agency. The objection, therefore, is devoid of any merit and untenable in law. It< also displays a deliberate obdurate approach.

The thifd contention advanced on behalf of the MIB is only an extended aspect of the first contention. It is based on the same distorted p interpretation of the right claimed. It proceeds on the footing that the BCCl/CAB is claiming a commercial right to exploit ·the sporting event when they assert that they have a right to telecast the event through an agency of their choice. It is even contended on behalf of the MIB that this amounts to a device for a non-citizen to assert rights under Article 19(1) (a) which are not available to him. G

It is unnecessary to repeat what we have stated while dealing with the first contention earlier, with regard to the character of BCCI/CAB, the nature of and the purpose for which the right to access to telecast is claimed by them. As pointed out is not possible to hold that what the H

1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1-S.CR.

A BCCl/CAB are in the present cast claiming is commercial right to exploit the event unless one takes a perverse view of the matter.. The extent of perversity is apparent from the contention raised by them that to engage a foreign agency for the purpose is to make' it a device for a non-~itizen to assert his rights under Article 19(1)(a). It cannot be denied thatI the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to disseminate information by the best possible method through an agency of one's choice so long as the engagement of such agency is not in contravention of Article 19(2) of the Constitution and does not amount to improper or unwarranted use of the frequencies. Hence the choice of BCCI/CAB of a foreign agency to telecast the matches, cannot be objected to. There is no suggestion in the present case that the engagement of the foreign agency by the BCCI/CAB is violative of the provisions of Article 19(2). On the other hand, the case of MIB, as pointed out earlier, is that the BCCI/CAB want to engage the foreign agency to maximise its revenue and hence they are not exercisi£g their right under Article 19(1) (a) but their commercial right under Article 19(1) (g). We have pointed out that argument is not factually correct and what 'in fact that BCCI/CAB is asserting is a right under Article 19(1)(a). While asserting the said right, it is incidentally going to earn some revenue. In the circumstances, it has the right to choose the best method to earn the maximum revenue possible. E In fact, it can be accused of negligence and may be attributed improper motives, if it fails to explore the most profitable avenue of telecasting the event, when in any case, in achieving the object of promoting and popularising the sports, it has to endeavour to telecast the cricket matches. The record shows that all applications were made and purported to have F been made to the various agencies on behalf of CAB for the necessary licences and permissions. All other Ministries and Departments under- stood them as such and granted the necessary permission and licences. Hence, by granting such permission, the Government was not in fact granting permission to the foreign agency to exercise its right under Article 19(1)(a). If, further, that was the only objection in granting permission, a G positive approach on the part of the MIB could have made it clear in the permission granted that it was being given to CAB. In fact, when all other Government Departments had no difficulty in construing the application to that effect and granting the necessary sanctions/permissions at th~ir end, it is difficult to understand the position taken by the MIB in that behalf. H One wishes that such a contention was not advanced.

r MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT, J.) 1101

The fourth contention is that, as held by the US Supreme Court, the freedom of speech has to be viewed also as a right of the viewers. which has a paramount importance, and the said view has significance in a country like ours. To safeguard the rights of the viewers in this country, it is necessary to regulate and restrict the right to access to telecasting. There cannot be any dispute with this proposition. We have in fact referred to this right of the viewers in another context earlier. True democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the polity of the country. The right to participate in the affairs of the country is meaningless unless the citizens are well informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are called upon to express their views. One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information all equal- C ly create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce when medium of information is monopolised either by a partisan central authority or by private individuals or oligarchic organisations. This is particularly so in a country like ours where about 65 per cent of the population is illiterate and hardly 1-1/2 per cent of the population has an access to the print media which is not subject to pre-censorship. When, therefore, the electronic media is controlled by one central agency or few private agencies of the rich, there is a need to have a central agency, as stated earlier, representing all sections of the society. Hence to have a representative central agency to ensure the viewers' right to be informed adequately and truthfully is a part of the right of the viewers under Article 19(1)(a). We are, however, unable to appreciate this contention in the present context since the viewers' rights are not at all affected by the BCCl/CAB, by claiming a right to telecast the cricket matches. On the other hand, the facts on record show that their rights would very much be trampled if the cricket matches are not telecast through the D.D., which has the monopoly of the national telecasting network. Although, there is no statistical data available (and this is not a deficiency felt only in this arena), it cannot be denied that a vast section of the people in this country is interested in viewing the cricket matches. The game of cricket is by far the most popular in all parts of the country. This is evident from over-flow- G ing stadia at the venues wherever the matches are played and they are played all over the country. It will not be an exaggeration to say that at least one in three persons, if not more, is interested in viewing the cricket matches. Almost all television sets are switched on to view the matches. Those who do not have a T.V. set of their own, crowd around T.V. sets of . H

1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A other when the matches are on. This is not to mention the number of transistors and radios which are on during the match-hours. In the face of these revealing facts, it is difficult to understand why the present contention with regard to the viewers' right is raised in. this case when the grant of access to BCCl/CAB to telecast cricket matches was in the interest of the viewers and would have also contributed to promote their rights as well.

The last argument on behalf of the MIB is that since in the present case, the DD has not refused to telecast the event, its monopoly to telecast cannot be challenged and in fact no such contention was raised by the BCCl/CAB. We are afraid that this will not, be a proper reading of the contentions raised by BCCl/CAB in their pleadings both before the High Court and this Court. Undisputed facts on record show that the DD claimed exclusive right to create host broadcasting signal and to telecast it on the terms and conditions stipulated by it or not at all. MIB even refused to grant uplinking facilities when the terrestrial signal was being creating J

D by the CAB with their own apparatus, i.e., the apparatus of the agency which they had engaged and when the use of any of the frequencies owned, controlled or commanded by DD or the Government, was not involved. Since BCCI/CAB were the organisers of the events, they had every right to create terrestrial signals of their event and to sell it to whomsoever they thought best so long as such creation of the signal and the sale thereof was not violative of any law made under Article 19 (2) and was not an abuse of the frequencies which are a public property. Neither DD nor any other agency could impose their terms for creating signal or for telecasting them unless it was sought through their frequencies. When the DD refused to telecast cricket matches except on their terms, the BCCl/CAB turned to another agency, in the present case a foreign agency, for creating the terrestrial signal and telecasting it through the frequencies belonging to that agency. When the DD refused to telecast the matches, the rights of the viewers to view the matches were in jeopardy. Only the viewers in this country who could receive foreign frequencies on their TV sets, could have viewed the said matches. Hence it is not correct to say that the DD had not refused to telecast the events. To insist on telecasting events only on one's unreasonable terms and conditions and not otherwise when one has the monopoly of telecasting, is nothing but refusal to telecast the same. The DD could not do it except for reasons of non- availability of frequencies or for grounds available under Article 19(2) of the Constitution or for considerations of public interest involved in the use of the frequ~ncies as

MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL (SAWAl'<"T, J.] 1103

public property. The fact that the DD was prepared to telecast the events only on its terms shows that the frequency was available. Hence, scarcity of frequencies or public interests cannot be pressed as grounds for refusing to telecast.or denying access to BCCl/CAB to telecasting. Nor can the DD. plead encroachment on the right of viewers as a ground since the telecast- ing of events on the terms of the DD cannot alone be said to safeguard the right of viewers in such a case and i~ fact it was not so.

18Copy pinpoint18. Coming to the facts of the present case, which have given rise to

.... the present proceedings, the version of MIB is as follows :

On March 15, 1993, the CAB wrote a letter to the Director General C of Doordarshan that a Six-Nation International Cricket Tournament will be held in November, 1993 as a part of its Diamond Jubilee Celebrations and asked DD to send a detailed offer for any of the two alternatives, namely, (i) that DD would create 'Host Broadcaster Signal' and also undertake live telecast of all the matches in the tournament or (ii) any other party may create the 'Host Broadcaster Signal' and DD would only pur- chase the rights to telecast in India. CAB in particular emphasised that in either case, the foreign T.V. rights would be with CAB. The CAB also asked DD to indicate the royalty amount that would be paid by the DD. On March 18, 1993 the Controller of Programmes {Sp~rts), DD, replied to the letter stating amongst other things that during the meeting and during the telephonic conversation, fAB's President Dalmia had agreed to send them in writing the amount that he expected as rights fee payable to CAB exclusively for India, without the Star TV getting it. On March 19, 1993, CAB informed DD that they would be agreeable to DD creating the Host Broadcaster Signal and also granting DD exclusive right for India F without the Star TV getting it and the CAB would charge DD US $800,000 {US Dollars eight lakh) for only the same. The CAB, however, made it clear that they would reserve the right to sell/license the right world wide, excluding India and Star TV. The CAB also stated that DD '!\'Ould be under an obligation to .provide a picture and commentary subject to payment of DD's technical fees. On March 31, 1993, DD sent its bid as 'Host .G Broadcaster' for a sum of Rs. 1 crore stating inter alia, that CAB should grant signals to it exclusively for India without the Star TV getting it. The DD also stated that they would be in a position to create the 'Host Broadcaster Signal' and offer a live telecast of all the matches in the tournament. Thereafter, on May 4, 1993, the DD by a fax message .H

1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1.S.C.R.

A reminded the President of CAB about its offer of March 31, 1993. To that CAB replied on May 12, 1993 that as the Committee of CAB had decided to sell/allot worldwide TV rights to one party, they would like to know whether DD would be interested in the deal and, if so, to send their offer for worldwide TV rights latest by May 17, 1993, on the following basis, namely, outright purchase of TV rights and sharing of rights fee. On May 14, 1993 DD by its fax addressed to CAB stated that it was committed to its earlier bid of Rs.I crore, namely, exclusive TV right in India alone. The DD also stated that as there was a speculation that Pakistan may not participate in the tournament, which may affect viewership and consequent commercial accruals. DD would have to rethink on the said bid also, in such an eventuality and requested CAB to reply to the said letter at the earliest.

On June 14, 1993, according to the MIB, without obtaining the required clearances from the Government for telecasting, the CAB entered into an agreement with the World Production Establishment (WPE) rep- resenting the interests of TWI (Trans World International), telecasting all the matches. The said agreement provided for grant of sole and exclusive . right to selVlicence or otherwise exploit throughout the world 'Exhibition Rights' in the tournament. CAB shall only retain radio rights for the territory of India. The CAB under the agreement was to receive not less than US $550,000 as guaranteed sum. If any income from the rights· fee is received in excess of the guaranteed sum, it was to be retained wholly by WPE until it was eventually split into 70:30 per cent as per the agreement. If the rights fee/income received was less than guaranteed sum, WPE was to pay the difference to CAB. The WPE was to pay, where possible, television license fee in advance of the start of the tournament.

On June 18, 1993, DD sent a fax to CAB stating therein that from the press reports, it had learnt that CAB had entered into an agreement with TWI for the TV coverage of the tournament, and the DD had decided not to telecast the matches of the tournament by paying TWI, and that DD G was not prepared to enter into any negotiations with TWI to obtain the television rights for the event. On June 30, 1993, DD also informed similarly International Management Group, Hong Kong.

On september 2, 1993, the Department of Youth Affairs and Spor~s, H Ministry of Human Resources Development, addressed a letter to the CAB

--"'-' MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL (SA WANT, J.] 1105

informing it that the Government has no objection to the proposed visit of the Cricket Teams of Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies and Zimbabwe, to India for participation in the tournament. The Department further stated that no foreign national shall visit any restricted/protected/ prohibited area of India without permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was also clarified that the sanction of foreign exchange was subject to the condition that CAB would utilize only the minimum foreign exchange required for the purpose and shall deposit foreign exchange obtained by it by way of fee, sponsorship, advertisements, broadcasting rights, etc. through normal banking channels under intimation to the Reserve Bank of India. On September 17, 1993 on the application of CAB made on September 7, 1993, VSNL advised CAB to approach the respec- C tive Ministries and the Telecom Commission for approval (a) regarding import of earth station and transmission equipment and (b) for frequency clearance from Telecom Commission. The Satellite to be used for the transmission coverage, was also required to be specified. It was further stated that CAB should approach VSNL for uplinking signal to INTEL- D SAT at Washington. The TWI was advised to apply VSNL for necessary coordination channels, and DD phone facility covering each location. On > October 9, 1993, TWI wrote to VSNL seeking frequency clearance from the Ministry of Communications. The TWI informed VSNL that they will be covering the tournament and that they were formally applying for its permission to uplink their signal as per the list attached to the letter. They E also sought frequency clearance for the walkie- talkie. On October 13, 1993, the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the CAB that the Ministry had 'no objection' to the filming of the cricket matches at any of the places mentioned in the CAB's letter and that the 'no objection' pertains to the filming of the matches on the cricket grounds only. The Ministry also gave F its 'no objection' to the use of walkie-talkie sets in the play grounds during the matches subject to the permission to be obtained from WPC.

On October 18, 1993, the CAB addressed a letter to DD for telecast- ing matches mentioning its earlier offer of rights for telecasting and pointed out that the offer of Rs. 10 million made by DD vide its fax message dated G March 31, 1993 and on the condition the CAB sh,lUld not grant any right to Star TV was uneconomical, and considering the enormous organization- al cost, they were looking for a minimum offer of Rs. 20 million. The CAB also pointed out that the offers received by them from abroad including from TWI, wer~ much higher than Rs. 20 million and that the payment. H

· 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A under the offers would be made in foreign exchange. The CAB also stated · that they were given to understand that DD was not interested in increasing their offer and hence they entered into a contract with TWI for telecasting the matches. However, they were still keen that DD should come forward to telecast the matches since otherwise people in India would be deprived of viewing the same. Hence they had made TWI agree to co-production with DD and they also prayed the DD for such co- production. The CAB's letter further stated that during a joint meeting the details were worked out including the supply of equipment list by the respective parties, and it was decided in principle to go for a joint production. The CAB stated that it was also agreed that DD would not claim ~xclusive right and CAB would be at liberty to sell the rights to Star TV. Thereafter CAB learnt from newspaper reports that DD had decided not to telecast the matches. Hence they had written a letter to DD dated September 15, 1993 to confirm the authenticity of such news, but they had not received any reply from DD. It was pointed that in the meanwhile they had been repeatedly approached by Star TV, Sky TV and other network to telecast matches to the Indian audience and some of them on an exclusive basis. But they had not taken a decision on their offers, since they did not want to deprive DD's viewers. It was further recorded that the CAB had also learnt recently that DD would be interested in acquiring the rights of telecast provided it was ' allowed to produce the matches directly, and the matches produced by' E TWI were made available to it live, without payment of any technical fees. After recording this, the CAB made fresh set of proposals, the gist of which was as follows :

1. TWI and Doordarshan would cover 9 (nine) matches each in the tournament independently, which are as follows: F Trans World International

November

MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT, J.] 1107

Second Semi Final (Culcutta) A Final (Culcutta) ·

Doordarshan

2. TWI will do the coverage of these matches with their own equipment, crew and commentators. Similarly Doordarshan will also have their own crew, equipmr.nt and commentators for the matches produced by them. D

3. Doordarshan will be at liberty to us~ their own commentators for matches produced by TWI for telecast in India. Similarly, TWI may also use their own commentators if they televised matches produced by Doordarshan in other networks.

4. TWI will allow Doordarshan to pick up the Signal and telecast live within India, free of charges. Similarly, Doordarshan will allow TWI to have the signal for live/recorded/highlights telecast abroad, free of charges.

..... 5. Doordarshan will not pay access fees to CAB, but shall allow 4 F minutes advertising time per hour (i.e. 28 minutes in 7 hours}. The CAB will be at liberty to sell such time slot to the advertisers and the proceeds so received will belong to CAB.

6. Contract will be entered upon by the CAB and Doordarshan directly for the above arrangements. TWI will give a written un- G dertaking for the coverage break-up as mentioned in point 1.

7. Score Card and Graphics shall be arranged by CAB and the expenses for such production or income derived from sponsorship shall be on the account of CAB. Both TWI and Doordarshan will use such. H

1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A Score Cards and Graphics as arranged b~ CAB. .,. The CAB requested DD to communicate their final decision in the matter before October 21, 1993.

B On October 26, 1993, sent a communication to INTELSAT at Washington seeking information of uplinking timings for TV transmission asked for by CAB/TWI. On October 27, 1993 the Telecommunications Department sent a letter to the Central Board of Excise and Customs on the question of temporarily importing electronic production eqwpment A...' required for transmission of one-day matches of the tournament and C conveying 'no objection' of the Ministry of Communications to the proposal, subject to the organizers coordinating with WPC (DOT) for frequency clearance, from the "Standing Advisory Committee on Frequen- ' cy Allocation (SACFA)", for TV up-linking from different places and coordinating with VSNL, Bombay for booking TV transponders. D On October 27, 1943, DD informed CAB with reference to its renewed offer of October 18, 1993 that the terms and conditions of the offer were not acceptable to it and that they have already intimated to them that DD will not take signal from TWI - a foreign organisation. They also made .it clear that they had not agree to any joint production with TWI. E On October 29, 1993, CAB replied to DD that they were surprised at the outright rejection of the various alternative proposals they had submitted. They had pointed out that the only reason given for rejection was that DD will not take signals from TWI, which was a foreign organization. Since they had also suggested production of live matches by DD the question of F taking signal from TWI did not arise. CAB further stated that purely in deference to DD's sensitivity about taking signal, from TWI, CAB would be quite happy to allowed DD to produce its own picture of matches and DD may like to buy rights and licenses from CAB at a price which will be mutually agreed upon, and that these rights would be on non-exclusive basis on Indian Territory. On October 30, 1993, DD sent a message to CAB G stating that DD will not pay access fee. to CAB to telecast the matches. However, for DD to telecast the matches live, CAB has to pay technical charges/production fee at Rs.5 lakh per match. In that case DD. will have exclusive rights for the signal generated and the parties interested to take the signal will have to negotiate directly with the DD. On October 31, 1993 H DD sent a fax message to CAB to the same effect. ·

MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT, J.] 1109

On November 1, 1993 VSNL deputed its engineers/staff to be at the A venues where the matches were being played to coordinate with TWI for t TV coverage. On November 2, 1993, TWI paid US $29,640 and (Pounds) 121,400 to VSNL as fees. for INTELSAT charges. On the same day, the Finance Ministry permitted the equipment of TWI to be imported on certain conditions by waiving the customs and additional duties of customs. B On November 4, 1993, CAB addressed a letter to DD referring to DD's fax message of October 31, 1993 asking for certain clarification on the offer made by DD. In this letter, CAB stated that since DD had asked for fees for production and telecast of matches, it was presumed that all revenue generated from the matches or entire time slot for advertisements, would belong to CAB and that they shall have the right to charge access fees C including other charges from parties abroad, and DD would telecast those matches for which CAB will pay ihe charges. The choice of the matches to be telecast by DD would be determined by CAB. On November 5, 1993, the DD rejected the terms. D On November 8, 1993, CAB filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court praying, among others, that the respondents should be directed to ) provide telecast and broadcast of all the matches and also provide all arrangements and facilities for telecasting and broadcasting of the matches by the agency appointed by the CAB, viz., TWI. Interim reliefs were also sought in the said petition. On the same day, the High Court directed the learned advocate of the Union of India to obtain instructions in the matter and in the meanwhile, passed the interim orders making it clear that they would not prevent DD from telecasting any match without affecting the existing arrangements between CAB and TWI. The writ petition was posted for further hearing on November 9, ~993 on which day, the learned F Single Judge confirmed the interim orders passed on November 8, 1993 and respondents were restrained from interfering with the frequency lines given to respondents No. 10 (TWI). On 10th November, 1993, VSNL advised INTELSAT at Washington seeking cancellation of its request for booking. On November 11, 1993, the learned Judge partly allowed the writ by directing All India Radio to broadcast matches. On November 12, 1993 G in the appeal filed by the Union of India against the aforesaid orders of the Division Bench, the High Court passed interim order to the following effect:

(a) that CAB would pay DD a sum of Rs. 5 lakh per match and H

1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R. -- - A the revenue collected by DD on account of sponsorship will be kept in separate accou.nt.

(b) that DD would be the host broadca~ter.

(c) that Ministry of Telecommunication would consider the ques- B tion of issuing a license to TWI under the Telegraphs Act and decide the same within three days.

On November 12, 1993, the Film Facilities Officer of the MIB informed the Customs Department at New Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta airports, that as TWI had not obtained required clearances from the C Government for the coverage of the tournament, they should not be permitted to remove exposed film outside India till it was cleared by the Government. On the same day, DD asked the CAB providing various facilities at each match venue as this tvas pre-requisite for creating host broadcaster signal in India. CAB sent a reply on the same day and called .D upon the DD to telecast matches within India pursuant to the High Court's order. On the same day again the Collector of Customs, Bombay. called upon CAB to pay customs duty on the equipment as there was a breach in the terms of the exemption order. I On the same day, i.e., November 12, again the Committee of ' E Secretaries decided that the telecast of all sporting events would be within the exclusive purview of the DD/MIB. It was also decided that for the purpose of obtaining necessary clearances for telecasting different types of events for the country, a Single Window service would be followed where the concerned Administrative Ministry would be the 'Nodal' Ministry to which the application will be submitted and it would thereafter be the function of the 'Nodal' Minist}y to obtain permissions froin the concerned Ministry/Agencies. "' On 14th November, 1993, the High Court in clarification of its order of November 12, 1993 directed, among others, as follows :

(a) In case the signal is required to be generated by TWI separately, ·such necessary permission should be given by DD and/or other competent authorities.

(b) The differences with regard to the placement of Cameras etc., if H any, between cricket authority and DD should be mutually worked out, and

MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT, J.] 1111

if this cannot be done, the dispute should be decided by the Head of the A Police in the place whether the match was being played.

(c). The equipment of TWI which had been seized by the Custo~s authority should be released upon undertaking that the same would not be used for any other purpose and B (d) The VSNL should take proper steps for uplinking, and should not take any steps to defeat the orders of the Court. The TWI should comply with all financial commitments to VSNL.

On November 15, 1993, the CAB and another filed the present Writ Petition No. 836 of 1993. On November 15, 1993, this Court passed an c order directing the Secretary, Ministry of Communications to hold meeting on the same day by 4.30 P.M. and communicate his decision by 7.30 P.M. The Customs Authorities were directed to release to equipments. On the same day at night another order was passed partly staying the orders of the Chairman, Telecommunications and Secretary, Dot. TWI was per- D mitted to generate its own signals and Customs Authorities were directed to release the goods forthwith. . .t

The DD filed Contempt Petition in the High Court on the same day against CAB and another for non-compliance with the orders of the High Court. The DD also filed the present Special Leave Petitions in this Court E on the same day.

What emerges from the above correspondence is as follows. The CAB as early as on 15th March, 1993, had offered to the DD two alterna- tives, viz., either the DD would create host broadcaster signal and under- take live telecast of all the matches in the tournament or any other party may create the host broadcaster signal and DD would purchase from the said party the rights to telecast the said signal in India. The CAB made it clear that in either case, the foreign TV rights would remain .it. The CAB also asked the DO to indicate the royalty that it will be willing to pay in either case. To that, on 18th March, 1993, the DD rejoined by asking in turn the amount of royalty that the CAB expected if the rights were given to it exclusively for India without the Star TV getting it. On 19th March, 1993, the CAB informed the DD that they would charge US$8 lakhs for giving the DD the right to create the host broadcaster signal and also for granting it exclusive right for India without the Star TV getting it. It was, however, emphasised that the CAB would reserve the right to sell/license H ·

1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A the right of broadcasting worldwide excluding India and the Star TV. The CAB also stated that the DD would be under an obligation to provide a picture and commentary subject to payment of DD's technical fees. On 31st March, 1993, the DD sent it:; bid as host broadcaster for a sum of Rs.¹ ·\.-- - crore (i.e., about US $3.33 lakhs at the then exchange rate). Obviously, this was less than 50 per cent of the royalty which was demanded by the CAB. B The CAB was, therefore, justified in looking for other alternatives and that is what they did before the DD by a fax message of 4th May, 1993, reminded the CAB about DD's offer of Rs.l crore (i.e., US $3.33 lakhs). To that message, the CAB replied on 12th May, 1993 that it had decided to selVallot worldwide TV rights to only one party and, therefore, they ...._ - would like to know whether the DD would be interested in the said deal c if so, to send their offer for worldwide TV rights, latest by 17th May, 1993. To this, on 14th May, 1993, the DD by Fax, replied that it was interested only in exclusive TV rights for India alone without the Star TV getting it and that it stood by its earlier offer of Rs. 1 crore (i.e., US$3.33 lakhs). The DD went further and stated that as there was a speculation that D Pakistan might not participate in the tournament which eventuality was likely to affect viewership and commercial accruals, it will have to rethink on that bid also meaning thereby that even the offer of Rs.¹ crore may be reduced.

According to the MIB, the CAB, thereafter, entered into an agree- E ment with World Production Establishment representing the interests of TWI for telecasting all the matches without obtaining clearance from the Government for telecasting, and granted TWI sole and exclusive right to sell or otherwise exploit all exhibition rights of the tournament. Under the agreement with TWI, the CAB was to receive US $ 5.50 lakhs as guaran- F teed sum and in addition, if any rights fee income was received in excess of the guaranteed sum, it was to be split in the ratio of 70:30 between the .... . parties, i.e., 70 per cent to the CAB and 30 per cent to TWI. Learning of this, the DD informed the CAB that it had decided not to telecast the matches of the tournament by paying TWI TV rights fee and that it was not prepared to enter into negotiations with TWI for the purpose. G Again on 18th. October, 1993, CAB addressed a letter to DD for telecasting the matches mentioning its earlier offer of rights for telecasting and pointed out that the offer of Rs. 1 crore made by DD on the condition that the CAB should not grant any right to Star TV was uneconomical. H CAB also pointed out that considering the enormous organisational costs ·

MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT, J.] 1113

involved, they were looking for a minimum offer of Rs.20 million. In this A connection, they pointed out that the offers received by them from abroad including from TWI were much higher than Rs. 20 million and under those offers, the payment was also to be received in foreign.exchange. The CAB further stated in that letter that they were given to understand that DD was not interested in increasing their offer and hence they entered into a contract with TWI for telecasting the matches. Yet, they were keen that B DD should telecast the matches since otherwise people in India would be deprived of viewing the same. They had, therefore, made the TWI agree for co-production with DD. They, therefore, requested the DD to agree to such co-production. The CAB also stated in the said letter that in fact in a joint meeting, details of such arrangement were worked out including the c supply of equipment list by the respective parties and it was decided in principle to go in for joint production. In the meeting, it was further agreed that DD would not claim exclusive rights the CAB would be at liberty to sell the rights to Star TV. However, since subsequently they had learnt from newspaper reports that DD had decided not to telecast the matches, by D their letter of 15th September, 1993 they had asked DD to confirm the authenticity of the news items. The DD, however, had not responded to the said letter. In the meanwhile, many other networks had repeatedly approached them for telecasting matches to the Indian audience and some of them on exclusive basis. But they had still kept the matter pending since they did not want to deprive the viewers of the DD of the matches. They E further added that they had also learnt that DD would be interested in acquiring rights of telecast provided it was allowed to produce some matches directly and the matches produced by TWI are made available to it live without payment of any technical fee. The CAB, therefore, in the circumstances, suggested a fresh set of proposals for DD's consideration and requested response before 21st October, 1993. On 27th October, 1993, F DD responded to the said ietter in the negative and stated that the offer made was not acceptable to it and they had already communicated to that effect earlier, stating that they will not take any signal from TWI. DD further denied that they had agreed to any joint production with TWI. The CAB by its letter of 29th October, 1993 pointed out, in response to this G letter, that since they had also suggested production of live matches by DD, question of taking signals from TWI did not arise, and in deference to DD's sensitivity about taking signals from TWI, CAB would be quite happy to allowd DD to produce its own picture of matches and DD may buy rights and licences from it at a price which will be mutually agreed upon. H

1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A Thus, the controversy between the parties was with regard to the terms for the telecasting of the matches. It inust be noted in this connection 1 that the DD had never stated to the CAB that it had no frequency to spare for telecasting the matches. On the other hand, if the CAB .had accepted the terms of the DD, DD was ready to telecast the matches. Therefore, the argument based on resource crunch as advanced on behalf of the B MIB/DD, is meaningless in the present case.

19Copy pinpoint19. All that we have to examine the present case is whether MIB/DD had stipulated unreasonable conditions for telecasting the matches. It is apparent from the above correspondence betw~en the parties that from the above correspondence between parties that CAB wanted a minimum of U.S. $8 lakhs, i.e., Rs. 2.40 crores. However, DD insisted that it would be the host broadcaster and will have exclusive telecasting rights for India and for these rights, it will pay only Rs.¹ crore. i.e., US $3.33 lakhs. It had also threatened to reduce the said offer of Rs. One crore because Pakistan was not likely to participate in the tournament. When it was pointed out by the CAB that this offer was uneconomical taking into consideration the enor- mous costs involved and the they were looking for a minimum of Rs. 2 crores and had received higher offers from other parties under which the payments will also be made in foreign exchange, DD stuck to its earlier offer and refused to raise it. In the meanwhile, the CAB received an offer of U.S. $5.50 lakhs, i.e., Rs. 1.65 crores from TWI as guaranteed sum plus a share to the extent of 70 per cent in the rights income fee. The CAB being the sole organiser of the event had every right to explore the maximum revenue possible and there was nothing wrong or improper in their negotiating with TWI the terms and conditions of the deal. However, F the only response of DD to these arrangements which were being worked >.~ I'

out between the CAB and TWI was that it would not telecast the matches of the tournament by paying TWI the fees for the CAB did not suit its doors on DD, and by its letter of 18th October, 1993 informed the DD that it was keen that DD should telecast the matches so that people in India are not deprived of viewing the matches. They also informed the DD that it was with this purpose that they had made TWI agree for co-production with the DD and had made a fresh set of proposals. However, these proposals were on materially different terms. To this, the DD replied by its letters of 27th October, 1993 that the terms and conditions of the offer were not acceptable to it. The CAB by its letter of 29th October, 1993 again offered the DD that if their only objection was to taking signals from TWI,

MIN. C>F INFORMATION AND BROADCAS!lNG v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT, J. J 1115

I since they had suggested production of live matches by DD in their fresh A T proposals, there was no question of taking signals from TWi and they should reconsider the proposals. To this, the only reply of the DD was that they will not pay .any Access Fee to CAB to telecast the matches and if DD were to telecast the matches, the CAB will have to pay Techni~ cal/Production Fee at the rate of Rs. 5 Iakhs per match, and in that case B the DD will have exclusive rights for the signal generated and the parties interested will have to take the signals from the DD after negotiating directly with it. In other words the DD took the stand that not only it will not pay any charges to the CA¹³ for the rights of telecasting the matches, but it is CAB which will have to pay the charges, and that the DD will be the sole producer of signals and others will have to buy the signals from it. c

20Copy pinpoint20. Thus the correspondence between the parties shows that each of the parties was trying to score over the other by taking advantage of its position. The blame for the collapse of the negotiations has to be shared by both. The difference, if any, was only in the degree of unreasonableness. D If anything, this episode once again emphasises the need to rescue the electronic media from th~overnment monopoly and bureaucratic control and to have an independen~uthority to manage and control it.

21Copy pinpoint21. Coming now to the change · the stand of the other Departments of the Government for granting facilit¹ to the agency engaged by the E CAB, the facts make a revealing reading. The actions of the various Departments of the Government, referred to e ier, show firstly, that the Ministries of Human Resources Development,·, Qf Home Affairs, of Finance, of Communications, and the VSNL had no objection whatsoever .. to the arrangements which the CAB had entered into with TWI, the foreign agency, for covering the cricket matches. In fact, they granted all the necessary permissions and facilities to the CAB!fWI in all respects subject to certain conditions with which neither the CAB nor TWI had any quarrel. Secondly, these various Departments had accepted TWI· as the agency of CAB for the purposes of the said coverage and they had no objection to the TWI covering the matches on the ground that it was a foreign agency. This was the situation till the writ petition was filed by the CAB in the Calcutta High Court on 8th November, 1993. It is necessary to remem,ber in this connection that the decision of the DD to intimate CAB that it will not pay even access fee to the CAB to telecast the tournament and that it was for the CAB to pay the technical/production fee of Rs. 5 lakhs per H

~\ 1116 SUPREME COURT REPO~TS [1995} l S.C.R.

A match with DD having exclusive right for the signal generate, and others will have to buy it after negotiating directly with the DD, was taken· on 30th/31st October, 1993. It is in that context that further developments which are relevant for our purpose and which took place during the pendency of the Court proceedings, have to be viewed. It is only on 12th B November, 1993 that the Committee of Secretaries came out with the concept of the nodal ministry. By itself, the decision to form the nodal ministry to coordinate the activities of all the concerned ministries and departments is unexceptional. But the time of taking the decision and its background was not without its significance, However, there is no adequate material on record to establish a nexus between the MIB/DD and the C aforesaid actions of the other authorities.

The nexus in question was sought to be established by the CAB by pointing out to the letter addressed by the Deputy Secretary in MIB with the approval of the Secretary, of that Ministry to Department of Youth D Affairs and Sports of the Ministry of Human Resources Development. It in terms refers to the meeting of the Committee of Secretaries on llth November, 1993 and states that according to the so-called "extant policy" of the Government, as endorsed by the Committee of Secretaries, the ... telecasting of sporting events is within the exclusive purview of DD/MIB. Accordingly, the MIB opposes the grant of any permission to M/s. WPE E or its agency TWI or any Indian Company to cover the matches for general reception in India through uplinking facility except in collaboration with DD with only the latter being the sole agency entrusted with the task of generating TV signal from the venue of the matches. It further states that the MIB opposes (i) import of any satellite earth station for the roverage F of the series, (ii) the grant of any ad-hoc exemption for the import of equipment by WPE or TWI without their first producing the approval of the competent authority permitting its use within India, in terms of the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Wireless Telegraph Act, 1933 in the absence of which possession of such equipment within India constitutes an offence, (iii) M/s. WPE or TWI being permitted to under- G take shooting of the cricket matches at different places and grant of visa or RAS to its personnel for visiting India, an (iv) the grant of any permis- sion to any aircraft leased by M/s. WPE/TWI for landing at any interna- tional or national airport.

H It was urged that the question of the absence of permission/licence

MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT, J.] 1117

of the requisite authorities under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Wire- A less Telegraph Act was never raised or made a ground for denial of the right to the BCCl/CAB to telecast the matches or to uplink the signal . through TWI till after CAB had approached the Calcutta High Court on 8th November, 1993. It was contended that the MIB woke up suddenly to the relevant provisions of the statute after the Court proceedings. We are, B however, not satisfied that these events conclusively establish that the other departments acted at the behest of the DD/MIB.

The circumstances in which the High Court came to pass its interim order dated 12th November, 1993 may now be noticed. The MIB and DD's appeal are directed against the said order and writ petition is filed by the C CAB for direction to respondent Nos. 1to⁹, which include, among others, Union of India.

In the writ petition filed by the CAB before the High Court on 8th November, 1993, the learned Single Judge on the same day passed an order D of interim injunction commanding the respondents to provide all adequate facilities and cooperation to the petitioner and/or their appointed agency for free and uninterrupted telecasting and broadcasting of the cricket matches in question to be played between 10th and 20th November, 1993, and restrained the respondents from tampering with, removing, seizing or dealing with any equipment relating to transmission, telecasting or broad- E casting of the said matches, belonging to the CAB and their appointed agency, in any manner whatsoever. On the next day, i.e, 9th November, 1993 the said interim order was made final. On the 11th November, 1993, on the application of the CAB complaining that the equipment brought by their agency, viz., TWI (respondent No. 10 to the petition) were seized by F --- the Bombay Customs authorities under the direction issued by the Ministry of Communications and the MIB, another order was passed by the learned Judge directing all Government authorities including Customs authorities to act in terms of the interim orders passed earlier on 8th/9th November,

1993. While passing this order in the presence of the learned counsel for the respondents who pleaded ignorance about the seizure of the equipment G by the Customs authorities, the learned Single Judge observed, among other things, as follows :

"It is submitted by the learned Counsel on behalf of the respon- dent that since, Doordarshan has been denied telecasting of the H

1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S,C.R.

A tournament by the respondent No. 5, Akashbani has also decided to stop broadcasting and in support of his contention has produci::d a letter dated 10th of November, 1993 issued by the Station Director, Calcutta, for Director General, All India Radio to Shri S.K. Kundu, Ce¹;1tral Government's Advocate whereupon it ap- pears that it was admitted, that All India Radio had planned· to B provide running commentary of the matches of the above tourna- ment organised by the Cricket Association of Bengal, but as Doordarshan was denied the facility of nominating the Host Broadcaster's Signal and it consequently decided not to cover those matches, All India Radio also had decided to drop the c coverage of those matches since the principles on which Doordar- shan based its decision, viz., the protection of inherent interest of the National Broadcasters to generate the signal of sports, applied equally to the All India Radio.

I fail to understand the logic behind the said letter and the D stand taken by the All India Radio in the matter which appears to me wholly illogical and ridiculous; Doordarshan might have some ... dispute with the ...... regarding the right to be the Host Broad- casters Signal including financial questions, but the All India Radio, which itself volunteered to broadcast the matches them- E selves, and when, adiriittedly, no financial transaction is involved between the All India Radio and the respondent No. 6, denial of the All India Radio to broadcast the said matches only on the ground that since Doordarshan was denied by the respondent No. 6 to be the Host Broadcaster's Signal, the All India Radio stopped broadcasting the matches following the same principle, appears to be absolutely whimsical and capricious.

X.XXXXXXXX

Such denial by the All India Radio certainly is an act done against the public interest and thus cannot be supported and/or upheld to deprive the general people of India of such small ·satisfaction....... .

xxxxxxxxx

H Accordingly, I find the action of the All India Radio in stopping

- + MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT, J.]

the broadcasting of aforesaid tournament is wholly illegal, arbitrary A and ma/a fide ... .'.. 1119

This writ application accordingly succeeds and allowed to the extent as stated above, and let a writ in the nature of mandamus to the extent indicated above. be issued." B The Union of India preferred an appeal against the said decision and in the appeal moved an application for staying the operation of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 8th/9th November, 1993. Dealing with the said application, the Division Bench in its order dated 12th November, 1993 observed, among other things, as follows: C "Mr. R.N. Das, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the Union of India and ·others including the Director General of Doordarshan, appearing with Mr. B. Bhattacharya and Mr .. Prodosh Mallick submitted inter a/ia, that the Doordarshan authority is very much inclined and keen to telecast the Hero Cup D matches in which several parties from aboard are participating including India. But it was pointed out that the difficulties have been created by Cricket Association of Bengal in entering into an agreement with Trans World International (UK) Inc. World Production the respondent No. 10 of the writ petition wherein the E Cricket Association of Bengal has. given exclusive rights to telecast to that authority. It was submitted by Mr. Das that under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 the Central Government have the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working _,, telegraph and that it was further submitted that the expression telegraph includes telecasts through Doordarshan. It was further F provided that proviso to Section 4 (1) of the said Act provides that the Central Government may grant a licence on such conditions and in consideration of such payments as it thinks fit to any person to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within an~ part of India. Relying upon the provisions it was submitted that neither the CAB G nor the TWI respondent No. 10 of the writ application have obtained any licence for the purpose of telecasting the matches direct from India." .- The Court then referred to the correspondence between the CAB and the DD between 31st March, 1993 and 31st October, 1993 and the H

\ . 1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R .

A letters of no objection issued to the CAB by the Ministry of Communica- tions and the VSNL and to the acceptance by the VSNL of the payments from TWI as per the demand of the VSNL itself for granting facilities of uplinking the signal and recorded its prima facie finding that the.DD was agreeable to telecast matches live_ for India on a consideration of Rs. 5 - B lakhs per match which was accepted under protest and without prejudice by the CAB and the only dispute was with regard to the revenue to be earned through advertisements during the period of the matches. The Court said that it was not adjudicating on as to what and in what manner the revenue through advertisements would be created and distributed between the parties. It left the said points to be decided on merits in the C appeal pending before it and proceeding to observe as follows :

"..... but at present having regard to the interest of millions of Indian viewers who are anxiously expecting to see such _live telecast, -we record as Doordarshan is inclined to telecast the matches for the D Indian viewers on receipt of Rs. 5 lakh per match and to enjoy the exclusive right of signalling within the country being host broad- caster, we direct the CAB to pay immediately a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs per match for this purpose and the collection of revenue on account of sponsorship or otherwise in respect of 28 minutes which is available for commer:cial purposes be realised by the Doordar- E shan on condition that such amount shall be kept in a separate account- and shall not deal with and dispose of the said amount until further orders and we make it clear regarding the entitlement and the manner in which the said sum will be treated would, abide by the result of the appeal or the writ application. Accordingly, it F is made clear that Doordarshan shall on these conditions start immediately telecasting the live matches of the Hero Cup for the subsequent matches from the next match in India. Mr. Das Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they

G were in a position technically or otherwise to telecast immediately. With regard to the right of TWI to telecast the matches outside India is concerne~, we also record that on time of heariJlg the - counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant showed an order in three lines that the authority concerned has summarily and without giving any reason and/or any hearing whatsoever directed to VSNL not to allow the TWI to transmit or to telecast from India in respect of the Hero Cup matches but it was submitted by the learned

I MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL (SAWANT, J.] 1121 '" Counsel appearing for the appellant that they are very much keen to consider the matter in proper perspective in accordance. with + laws, having regard to the national impact on this question. It appears that on the basis of the representation made by VSNL, .- ' TWI came into the picture anc subsequently TWI entered into an agreement with the CAB. At this stage, we are not called upon to decide the validity or otherwise of such an agreement entered into by the parties. As a matter of fact, we are referring this without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. It further appears that the Government of India through the Department of Communication stated that the said department had no objection with regard to the permission to the CAB for temporarily import- c ing electronic product equipments required for transmitting one day matches of the Hero Cup as a part of Diamond Jubilee Celebration to be started from November 7 to 27, 1993, the Ministry has no objection to proposal "subject to the organisers Co-ordinating with WPC (DOT) for frequency clearance from the D Standing Advisory Committee on frequency allocation (SACFA) for TV uplinking from different places and coordinating with ... VSNL, Bombay for booking of TV transponders etc. It appears that the said no objection certificate has created a legitimate expectation, particularly in view of the fact that the money demanded by VSNL in this behalf was duly paid by TWI and· all arrangements have been made by TWI for performing the job. As we find that no formal permission is required under proviso to section 4(1) of Indian Telegraph Act is there is favour of the party, having regard to the facts s~ated above and having regard to National and International impact on this question and having regard to the fact that any decision taken will have the tremendous impact on the International sports, we direct the appellant No. 5 who is respondent No. 6 in the writ application. The Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi, Government of India to consider the facts and circumstances of the case clearly suggesting that there had already been an implied grant of permission, shall grant a provisional permission or licence without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in ~ this appeal and the writ application and subject to the condition that the respondent No. 6 in the writ application will be at liberty H

I MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL (SAWANT, J.) 1123

Bombay. The Bench observed that the Court was given to under.stand that none of the parties was inclined to go higher up against its earlier order and that what was required was certain clarification of that order in the changed circumstances. The learned counsel for the CAB stated that .they were not going to oppose the DD placing their cameras but the dispute had arisen as to the signalling to be made for the telecast. According to the learned counsel for the Union of the India, there could be only one signalling from the field and DD should be treated as host broadcaster and the TWi should take signal from it. This was opposed by the learned counsel for the CAB who contended that DD had been given exclusive right as host broadcaster so far as the telecasting of matches in India was concerned. The telecastmg of matches abroad was to be done by TWI. The c Division Bench held that the DD will have the exclusive right of signalling for the purposes of telecasting within the country, and they were ~o be treated as host broadcasters so far as telecasting within India was con- cerned. As far as TWI is concerned, if it was authorised and permitted in terms of their earlier order, it would be entitled to telecast outside the D Country and to send their signal accordingly. They also stated that in case the signalling was required to be made by the TWI separately the necessary permission should be given by the DD or other competent authorities. They resolved the dispute with regard to the placement of cameras by directing . that DD will have first priority and if there was any disp~te on that account it would be resolved by the local head of the Police Administration at the E venue concerned. They also directe~ the Customs authorities, Bombay to release the equipments imported for the purposes of TWI with the condi- tion that the said equipment will be used only for transmission of the matches and' they shall not deat with or dispose of the said equipments or remove it outside the country without the permission of the Court. In F particular, they also directed the VSNL to take proper steps for uplinking and not to ta~e any step to defeat the purpose.

Against the said order of the Division Bench, the present appeals are preferred by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and others whereas the writ petition is filed by the CAB for restraining the respon- G dents, (which include, among others, Union of India (No.¹), Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (No. 2), Director General, Door- darshan (No.3), Secretary, Ministry of Communications (No. 5), Director, Department of Telecommunications (No.6), and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (No. 9), from preventing, obstructing and interfering with or H

1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A creating any hurdles in the implementation of agreement dated 14.6.1993 between the petitioner-CAB and respondent No.10, i.e., TWI.

The matter was heard _by this Court 0n 15th November, 1993. It appears from the record that although the High Court had directed the Secretary, Ministry of Communications to decide the question of granting B licence under section 4(1) of the Telegraph Act within 3 days from 12th November, 1993 by its order of the same day, the Secretary had fixed the meeting for consideration of the application only on the 16th November,

1993. That itself was a breach of the High Court Court's order. This Court, therefore, directed the Secretary to hear the matter at 4.30 p.m. on 15th C November, 1993 and communicate its decision to TWI or its counsel or to the CAB or its counsel immediately thereafter but before 7.30 p.m. on the same day. This Court also directed U1e Customs authorities to release the equipment forthwith which they had not done in spite of the High Court's order. The TWI and CAB were, however, restrained from using the said equipment till the licence was issued by the Secretary, Department of D Telecommunication. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the Secretary by his order of 15th November, 1993 after referring to the judgment of the High Court and its implication and after taking into consideration the arguments E of the respective parties, held as follows :

"In this connection, we have to take into account an important point brought to our notice by the Director General Doordarshan. It is true that Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 enables the government to give licences to agencies others than Doordar- F shan or the government departments to telecast. In fact, such a permission had been given in January 1993 when the cricket matches were telecast by the same TWI. However, subsequently, I am given to understand that the government policy in the Ministry of I&B has been that the uplinking directly by private par- ties/foreign agencies from India for the purpose of broadcasting should not be permitted.

It is true that in a cricket match we are not considering security aspects. But, the point to be considered is whether uplinking given in a particular case will have its consequences on other such claims which may not be directly linked to sports and which will have

I I MIN. OF INFORMATJl)N AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT, J.J 1125

serious implications. Within the government, as per Allocation of f ~ Business Rules, it is the Ministry of I&B which has the respon- sibility for formulation and implementation of the policies relating to broadcasting/telecasting.

As was made clear earlier, in this case, we are considering two aspects. One is the generation of signals and the second is their communication. The Department of Telecommunication comes in the picture so far as the communication aspect is concerned.

Taking into account the facts mentioned above, the only reasonable conclusion. I reach is that permission may be gi.ven to TWl for telecast overseas through the VSNL, while Doordarshan will be telecasting within the country. The TWI will have to get the signals from Doordarshan for uplinking through the VSNL by making mutual a"angements. So far as VSNL is concerned, there should be no difficulty in transmitting the signals through Intelsat as already agreed upon. D. In my view, the above decision takes into account the needs of the millions of viewers both within the country and abroad who are keen to watch the game and at the same time ensures that there is no conflict with the broad government policy in the Ministry of E I&B which is entrusted with the task of broadcasting. It also takes into account the overall aspects and the reasonable expectation created within the TWI by the series of clearances given by the different authorities of the Government of India."

This order which was passed around 7.30 p.m. was challenged by the F CAB, and being an urgent matter, was heard by the Court late at night on the same day. The Court stayed the order of the Secretary to the extent that it imposed a condition that the TWI will have to get the signals from the DD for uplinking through the VSNL by making mutual arrangements. The Court directed that the TWI can generate its own signal by focussing G its cameras only on the ground where the matches were being played, as directed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and that they will take care not to focus their cameras anywhere else.

For telecasting the triangular series and the West Indies tour to India in 1994 season, the same disputes arose between the parties. By their letter· H

1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A of 25th August, 1994, the BCCI requested the Director, Sports, of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports to grant permission to it or TWI/ESPN to telecast the triangular series and matohes to be played between India and West Indies. By their letter of 30th August, 1994 written to the Secretary, Department of Sports, B the MIB dpposed the grant of uplinking facilities to any foreign agency. On 14th September, 1994, Ishan Television India Ltd. [with a tie-up with ESPN which had contract with BCCI], applied to the VSNL for uplinking facilities for telecasting of the said matches. The VSNL thereafter wrote to the MIB for their "no objection" and the MIB opposed the grant. of "no C objection" certificate and objected to VSNL writing to the MIB directly for the purpose. The MIB also stated that their view in the matter was very clear that satellite uplinking from Indian soil would be within the exclusive competence of the MIB/DOT/DOS and the telecast of sporting events would be the exclusive privilege of DD. By their letter of 26th September, 1994, the 'nodal' Ministry, i.e., Ministry of Human Resources Development D (Department of Youth Affairs and Sports) addressed to all the Ministries and Departments including the MIB called for the remarks on the letter of the BCCI addressed to the nodal Ministry. The MIB again wrote to the Sports Department of the nodal Ministry, opposing grant of Single Window service to the BCCI. On 3rd October, 1994, the VSNL returned the E advance which it had received from Ishan TV for uplinking facilities. On 7th October, 1994, this Court passed the following order :

"Pending the final disposal of the matters by this interim order confined to telecast the International Cricket Matches to be played in India from October 1994 to December 1994, we direct respon- F dent Nos. 1and6 to 9 in Writ Petition No. 836/93 to grant forthwith necessary permission/sanctions and uplinking facilities for produc- tion, transmission and telecasting of the said matches.

We also direct respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in writ petition No. G 836/93 and all other Government Agencies not to obstruct/restrict in any manner whatsoever production, transmission and telecasting of the said matches for the said period by the petitioner applicant only on the ground where the Cricket Matches would be played and the signals are generated under the direct supervision of the H VSNL personnel.

I MIN. OF INFORMATION ANIJ BROADCASI1NG v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL [SAWANT,J.] 1127

So far as the production, transmission and telecasting of these matches in India is concerned, the Doordarshan shall have the exclusive right in all respects for the purpose, and the petitioner applicant shall not prevent Doordarshan from doing so, and in particular shall afford all facilities for Doordarshan to do so.

So far as the placement of cameras are concerned both petitioner-applicant as well as Doord~rshan shall have equal rights. ·This shall be ensured by Shri Sunil Gavaskar in consultation with such technical experts as he may deem necessary to consult. He is requested to do so. As far as the remuneration for Shri Sunil Gavaskar and the technical expert is concerned, both Doordarshan C as well as the petitioner-applicant will share the remuneration equally which will be fixed by this Court.

As regards the revenue generated by the advertisement by Doordarshan is concerned, Doordarshan will deposit the said amount in a separate account and preferably in a nationalised D Bank. The Doordarshan will have the exclusive right to advertise- ment. All the IAs are disposed of accordingly".

Since certain disputes arose between the parties, on 18th October, 1994 this Court had to pass the following order : · E "The BCCI will ensure tl¹.at all Cricket Associations and staging Centres shall extend every facility to the personnel authorised by the Doordarshan to enter into the Cricket Ground for production, transmission and telecasting of the matches without any late or hindrance. F

The BCCI will also ensure that all Cricket Associations staging the matches will make available every facility and render such assistance as may be necessary and sought by the Doordarshan for effective telecasting of the matches at the respective grounds and G stadia.

The BCCI shall not permit the ESPN to enter into any contract either with A.T.N. or any. other Agency for telecasting in any manner all over India, whether through the Satellite footprmts or otherwise, Cricket Matches which are being telecast in India by H

1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995]' l S.C.R.

A the Doordarshan. If the ESPN has entered into any such contract either with A.T.N. or any other Agency, that contract should be cancelled forthwith.

Since this Court is seized of the present matter, no court should entertain any writ petition, suit or application which is connected in any manner with the discharge of obligation imposed on the respective parties to the present proceedings. If any such writ petition, suit or application is already entertained, the Courts should not proceed with the same till further orders of this Court.

C The BCCI and the Doordarshan will mutually solve the prob- lem of the Control Room and Storage Room facilities needed by the Doordarshan, preferably in one meeting in Bombay on 20th October, 1994".

22Copy pinpoint22. The law on the subject discussed earlier makes it clear that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to communicate effectively and to as large a population not only in this )

country but also abroad, as is feasible. There are no geographical barriers on communication. Hence every citizen has a right to use the best means available for the purpose. At present, electronic media, viz., T.V. and radio, is the most effective means of communication. The restrictions which the electronic media suffers in addition to those suffered by the print media, are that (i) the airwaves are a public property and they have to be used for the benefit of the society at large, (ii) the frequencies are limited and (iii) media is subject to pre-censorship. The other limit~tion, viz., the reasonable restrictions imposed by law made for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) is common to all the media. In the present case, it was not and cannot be the case of the Mm that the telecasting of the cricket matches was not for the benefit of the society at large or not in the public- iilterest and, therefore, not a proper use of the public property. It was not the case of the MIB that it was in violation of the provisions of Article G 19(2). There was nothing to be pre-censored on the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2). AS regards the limitation of resources, since the DD was .prepared to telecast the cricket matches, but only on its terms it could not plead that there was no frequency available for telecasting. The DD could also not have ignored the rights of' the viewer~ which the High Court was H at. pains to emphasise while passing its orders and to which we have also

I MIN. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CRICKET ASSN. OF BENGAL (SAWANT, J.] 1129

made a reference. The CABJBCCI being the organisers of the event had a A right to sell the telecasting rights of its event to any agency. Assuming that + the DD had no frequency to spare for telecasting the matches, the CAB could certainly enter into. a contract with any agency including a foreign agency to telecast the said matches through that agency's frequency for the viewers in this country (who could have access to those frequencies) as well B as for the viewers abroad. The orders passed by the High Court in effect gave a right to DD to be the host broadcaster for telecasting in this country and for the TWI, for telecasting for the viewers outside this country as well as those viewers in this country who have an access to the TWI frequency. The order was eminently in the interests of the viewers whatever its merits on the other aspects of the matter. C

23Copy pinpoint23. The orders passed by the High Court have to be viewed against the backdrop of the events and the position of law discussed above. The circumstances in which the High Court passed orders and the factual and legal considerations which weighed with it in passing them speak for themselves. However, Since the cricket matches have already been telecast, D the question of the legality or otherwise of the orders has become academic and it is not necessary to pronounce our formal verdict on the s~me. Hence we refrain from doing so.

24Copy pinpoint24. We therefore, hold as follows: E (i) The airwaves or frequencies are a public property. Their use has to be controlled and regulated by a public authority in the interests of the public and to prevent the invasion of their rights. Since the electronic media involves the use of the airwaves, this factor creates an in-built restriction on its use as in the case of any ot~er public property. F (ii) The right to impart and receive information is a species of the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. A citizen has a fundamental right to use the best means of imparting and receiving information and as such to have an access to G telecasting for the purpose. However, this right to have an access to telecasting has limitations on account of the use of the public properfy, viz., the airwaves involved in the exercise of the right and can be controlled and regulated by the public authority. This limitation imposed by the nature of the public property involved in the use of.the electronic media is in addition to the restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of speech and expres;. H

1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A sion under Article 19(2) of the Constftution. (iii) The Central Government shall take immediate steps to establish an independent autonomous public authority rep~esentative of all sections and interest in the society to control and regulate the use of the airwaves.

B (iv) Since the matches have been telecast pursuant to the impugned order of the High Court, it is not necessary to decide the correctness of the said order.

(v) The High Court will not apportion between the CAB and the DD · the revenues generated by the advertisement.on T.V. during the telecasting C of both the series of the cricket rilatches, viz., the Hero Cup, and the International Cricket Matches played in India from October to December 1994, after hearing the parties on the subject.

25Copy pinpoint25. The civil appeals are disposed of accordingly. D In view of the disposal of the civil appeals, the writ petition filed by the Cricket Association of Bengal also stands disposed of accordingly.

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.

E While I agree broadly with the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother Sawant, J. in para 24 of his Judgment, I propose to record my views and conclusions on the issues arising in these matters in view of their far-reaching importance.