Supreme Court Upholds Right of Sports Organisers to Telecast Events, Calls for Independent Authority to Regulate Broadcasting Frequencies
Landmark Judgment Affirms Freedom of Speech Includes Right to Telecast Sports; Government Monopoly on Broadcasting Should Not Deny Access; Parliament Urged to Enact Modern Broadcasting Laws
In a significant judgment dated February 9, 1995, the Supreme Court of India delivered a comprehensive verdict in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal and others, addressing fundamental questions about the rights of sports organisers and the government’s role in regulating electronic media broadcasting. The case arose from a dispute over telecasting rights for international cricket matches organised by the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
The Court was called upon to examine whether organisers or producers of sporting events have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to telecast their events through an agency of their choice—including foreign agencies—and whether government monopoly over telecasting frequencies could restrict such rights. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and Doordarshan contended that the exclusive rights and licensing norms under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, allowed them to control telecasting, especially uplinking signals to satellites, and that the CAB/BCCI’s commercial interests in selling telecast rights do not fall under freedom of speech but under trade and commerce regulations.
Rejecting these contentions, the Supreme Court clarified that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to impart and receive information, which extends to telecasting and broadcasting of organised sports events such as cricket. The Court held that the organisers of such events have the right to produce, transmit, and telecast their events through agencies of their choice, subject only to reasonable restrictions specified under Article 19(2) concerning sovereignty, security, public order, morality, defamation, and related grounds.
The Court emphasized that telecasting of sports events has a free speech element, particularly when asserted by non-commercial sporting bodies like CAB and BCCI, whose primary objective is to promote the game of cricket and not merely to earn profits. It rejected the Ministry’s argument that the right to telecast was a mere commercial right under Article 19(1)(g).
Addressing the government’s claim of scarcity of frequencies and monopoly over telecasting, the Court observed that airwaves and frequencies constitute public property, usage of which must be regulated in the public interest. While the government can regulate and license the use of this resource to prevent monopolisation, such control cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in a manner that stifles fundamental rights. The Court found that CAB/BCCI did not seek any frequency owned or controlled by Doordarshan or the government but requested permission only to uplink signals generated by their own cameras or their agency to foreign satellites—a request that cannot be denied on the ground of limited frequencies.
The judgment further highlighted the outdated nature of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which inadequately governs modern broadcasting and telecasting. The Court strongly urged the Parliament to enact comprehensive legislation to regulate the electronic media, including the establishment of an independent, autonomous public authority representing diverse societal interests to manage the use of airwaves and broadcasting frequencies. This body would ensure that the electronic media serves public interests and preserves plurality of views, balancing the rights of broadcasters, organisers, and viewers alike.
The Court also noted the necessity to safeguard the rights of viewers, who have a paramount interest in receiving diverse information and entertainment. It underscored that monopolisation of broadcasting rights—whether by government or private entities—would be detrimental to the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens.
While the Court refrained from pronouncing on the exact legality of the High Court orders passed during the pendency of the case, it upheld the principle that the organiser of the event has the right to select the agency of telecasting and that government or its agencies cannot impose unreasonable conditions or insist on exclusivity unless justified under constitutional restrictions.
The verdict is a milestone in affirming that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to disseminate information through electronic media and that monopolies over broadcasting frequencies cannot infringe this right without constitutional sanction. It paves the way for liberalisation of broadcasting policies while ensuring regulation for public good and protection of fundamental rights.
Statutory provisions
Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, Section 4(1) and Section 3(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
Secretary, Ministry of I. and B. v. Cricket Assocn., Bengal, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 86331
