Interim measures can be directed to balance competing interests and regulate broadcasting rights, pending further examination of technical aspects and feasibility.

JUDGMENT :

Swatanter Kumar, J.

Arguments in the present case have been addressed for quite sometime. It is likely to take further time. The contention raised on behalf of defendant, particularly by defendants No. 3 & 4 is that the injunction order passed by this Court is seriously prejudicing their interest. They further prayed that at least for the remaining two matches of India-South Africa Series, the interim order may be varied. The parties have raised serious issues of facts and law. It may not be possible to conclude the hearing and pronounce the orders today itself. Furthermore the Court is of the considered opinion that this matter involves certain technical notices in regard to capacity of Parsar Bharti to frame its regulations, BCCI's power to put an absolute bar or any other such bar, which may be unfair. The BCCI having given its rights for the two series in question to the Parsar Bharti has retained its copyright, is not really raising any serious objections either way. It must be noticed that the News Channels cannot be treated at parity with total commercial channels and they must act in a larger interest of the public in ensuring that the cricket news reaches all parts of the country or even overseas. Learned counsel for the Parsar Bharti without prejudice to their rights and contentions has in fact vehemently argued that the restriction imposed by them under the New Access Rules is just, fair and proper and they are legally competent to do so and agreed to enhance the time (cap time to four minutes). Further with a qualification that a news channel will not prefix or even run scroller before, during or after by adding commercial advertisements by a scroller or otherwise and will not carry out any programming of the entire time.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants particularly defendants 1, 3 and 4 respectively submit that Parsar Bharti has no legal or otherwise any other right to impose such restriction, while taking the plea of discrimination, the DD News Channel has no such restriction and is given time for 102 minutes (as per the documents by the plaintiff itself). It is also contended on behalf of the plaintiff that they are paying more than Rs. 1 crore per hour of match and as such they cannot without commercial interest permit the defendants to use any further time and DD News is their channel as such they can permit them any time limit. Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that they have no intention so as to restrict totally the news channels even from reasonably depicting the news in relation to the matches. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that there is apparent discrimination made by the plaintiff between the news channels itself. The DD News Channel has no restriction while upon all other channels, this restriction has been imposed. It is also their contention that the defendants are also protected u/s 39 of the Copyright Act being a fair dealing. Reliance has been placed on different Judgments of the Courts in that regard. However, according to the plaintiff, there is no unreasonable restriction imposed by them and the action of the defendants cannot be termed as fair dealing in accordance with the provisions of Section 39, the transaction in question being entirely a commercial transaction.

2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, some interim arrangements are to be made so as not to totally frustrate the right of the news channels to give news in relation to cricket matches, as was said during the course of hearing that the news channels give news every half an hour. It cannot be stated to be in public interest that one news must be repeated every half an hour. The news channels can certainly regulate giving such news so as to put certain restrictions even if their contentions have some merit. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and keeping in view that the learned Counsel appearing for the parties have not seriously opposed