Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.*
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broad-casting, Govt. of India and others, Appellants
Versus
Cricket Association of Bengal and others. Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos.1429-30 of, 1995 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 18532-33 of 1993), with Writ Petn. (C) No. 836 of 1993
Decided on 9-2-1995.
WITH
Cricket Association of Bengal and another, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
The judgments are printed in the order in which they are given in the certified copy. Ed.
Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 19(2) - Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 - Section 9 (1-A) - impugned Act - Section 9(1-A) - Telegraph Act - Section 4 - Appointment satellite - Governmental agencies - Case have a monopoly of creating terrestrial signals and of telecasting them or refusing to telecast them whether Government or Government agencies like DD can claim to be host broadcaster for all events whether produced by anybody else in the country and can insist upon or agency for telecasting engaged by him take the signal only from the Government or Government agency and telecast it only with its permission or jointly stage in telecasting is to generate the audio-visual signals of the events or of the information which is sought to be communicated. When the event to be telecast takes place on the earth necessarily the signal is generated on the earth by requisite electronic mechanism such as the audio-visual recorder - This stage may be described as recording stage events may be spontaneous accidental natural spontaneous accidental and natural events are their nature uncontrollable - But events can be controlled by law of land - In our country since event is an aspect of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression protected by Article law can made to control such events only purpose of imposing reasonable restrictions interest of sovereignty and integrity of country security of State friendly relations with foreign State public order decency or morality or relation to contempt of Court defamation or incitement an offence as laid down Article Constitution - Although therefore is not possible to make law for prohibiting recording of spontaneous accidental or natural events is possible for reasons mentioned Article restrict their telecasting. As regards organised events law can be made for restricting or prohibiting event itself and also for telecasting on same grounds as are mentioned in Article - There cannot however restrictions on producing and recording event on grounds not permitted - Held, Posits an aware citizenry. Diversity of opinions views ideas and ideologies is essential to enable citizens arrive at informed judgment on all issues touching them. This cannot be provided by a medium controlled by a monopoly - whether the monopoly is of the State or any other individual group or organization - As a matter private broadcasting stations may perhaps be more prejudicial to free speech right of the citizen than government controlled media as explained in the body of the judgment. broadcasting media should be under the control of the public as distinct from Government - This is the command implicit in Article It should be operated by a public statutory corporation or corporations as case may be whose constitution and composition must be such as to ensure its/their impartiality in political, economic and social matters and on all other public issues - It/they must be required law to present news views and opinions in a balanced way ensuring pluralism and diversity of opinions and views It/they must provide equal access to all citizens and groups to avail of the medium intended for an altogether different purpose when it was enacted - This is the result of the law in this country not keeping pace with the technological advances in field information and communications - While all the leading democratic countries have enacted laws specifically governing broadcasting media law this country has stood still rooted Telegraph Act Except Section definition of telegraph no other provision Act is shown to have any relevance to broadcasting media - It is therefore imperative that Parliament makes a law placing the broadcasting media in hands public/statutory corporate or the corporations, as the case may be - This is necessary to safeguard the interests of public and interests of law as also to avoid uncertainty confusion and consequent litigation CAB did not ever apply for a license under the first proviso to Section 4 of the Telegraph Act nor did against ever make such an application permissions clearances or exemption obtained by it from the several departments mentioned in judgment are no substitute for a license Section In absence of such a license CAB had no right in law to have its matches telecast by an agency of its choice legality or validity of orders passed Secretary Government of India Telecommunications Department need not be gone into since it has become academic - In and circumstances of case charge of mala fides of arbitrary and authoritarian conduct attributed to and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is not acceptable - No opinion need be expressed on allegations made in Interlocutory Applications filed by BCCI in these matters - Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
SAWANT, J. :-—(For himself and on behalf of S. Mohan, J.) Leave granted.
It will be convenient to answer the questions of law that arises in the present case, before we advert to the factual controversy between the parties. The questions of law are :
[1] Has an organiser or producer of any event a right to get the event telecast through an agency of this choice whether national or foreign?
[2] Has such organiser a choice of the agency of telecasting, particularly when the exercise of his right, does not make demand on any of the frequencies owned, commanded or controlled by the Government or the Government agencies like the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) or Doordarshan (DD)?
[3] Can such an organiser be prevented from creating the terrestrial signal and denied the facility of merely uplinking the terrestrial signal to the satellite owned by another agency whether foreign or national?
[4] What, if any, are the conditions which can be imposed by the Government department which in the present case is the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) for (a) creating terrestrial signal of the event and (b) granting facilities of uplinking to a satellite not owned or controlled by the Government or its agencies?
On answers to these questions depend the answers to the incidental questions such as (i) whether the Government or the Government agencies like DD in the present case, have a monopoly of creating terrestrial signals and of telecasting them or refusing to telecast them, (ii) whether the Government or Government agencies like DD can claim to be the host broadcaster for all events whether produced or organised by it or by anybody else in the country and can insist upon the organiser or the agency for telecasting engaged by him, to take the signal only from the Government or Government agency and telecast it only with its permission or jointly with it.
2. To appreciate the thrust of the above questions and the answers to them, it is necessary first to have a proper understanding of what telecasting means and what its legal dimensions and consequences are. Telecasting is a system of communication either audio or visual or both. We are concerned in the present case with audio visual telecommunication. The first stage in telecasting is to generate the audio-visual signals of the events or of the information which is sought to be communicated. When the event to be telecast takes place on the earth, necessarily the signal is generated on the earth by the requisite electronic mechanism such as the audio-visual recorder. This stage may be described as the recording stage. The events may be spontaneous, accidental, natural or organised. The spontaneous, accidental and natural events are by their nature uncontrollable. But the organised events can be controlled by the law of the land. In our country, since the organisation of an event is an aspect of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression protected by Article 19 (1) (a), the law can be made to control the organisation of such events only for the purpose of imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of the country, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence as laid down under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Although, therefore, it is not possible to make law for prohibiting the recording of spontaneous, accidental or natural events, it is possible for the reasons mentioned in Article 19(2), to restrict their telecasting. As regards the organised events, a law can be made for restricting or prohibiting the organisation of the event itself, and also for telecasting it, on the same grounds as are mentioned in Article 19(2). There cannot, however, be restrictions on producing and recording the event on grounds not permitted by Article 19(2). It, therefore, follows that the organisation or pro
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
