Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not granted permission to telecast the above-said event on DD-I Channel which is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the act of the respondents in declining to provide slots to the petitioners while having already telecast Film fare Manikchand Award, Screen Videocon Awards and Femina Colgate Miss World Award is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The details of the business activities of the petitioners are referred to in paragraph 3.1 of the writ writ petition which reads as follows:

(C) The respondents have taken a decision not to telecast the said awards function since it is organized by and bears the name of Zee TV which is a competitor TV Channel of DD. The respondents are, therefore, not obliged to promote the competitor Channel or telecast programmes organized by them and which bear their name. The Film fare Manik Chand Awards, Screen Videocon Awards, Femina Palmolive Miss India Awards stand on different footing.
(D) The right to choose a programme to telecast is the right of TV Channel, namely, DD in this case and normally this is not an area in which the Court can step in and decide as to which programme should be accepted for telecast and which should not unless there is evidence of any mala fide or the decision has been ta ken on extraneous consideration;

7. Similar reliance is placed on the judgment reported as Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and Ors. (supra). The following portion from paragraph 75 is referred to as below:

"75. 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 thought and feeling and not of the physical or intellectual prowess or skill. It is also true that a person desiring to telecast sports events when he is not himself a participant in the game, does not seek to exercise his right of self-expression. However, the right to freedom of speech 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 that of the viewers. The right to telecast sporting event will therefore also include 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......"
l(a) Game of cricket, like any other sports event, provides entertainment. Providing entertainment is implied in freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution subject to this rider that where speech and conduct are joined in a single course of action, the free speech values must be balanced against competing societal interests. The petitioners (CAB and BCCI) therefore have a right to organise cricket matches in India, whether with or without the participation of foreign teams. But what they are now seeking is a licence to telecast their matches through an agency of their choice -- a foreign agency in both the cases -- and through telecasting equipment brought in by such foreign agency from outside the country. In the case of Hero Cup matches organized by CAB, they wanted up linking facility to INTEL5AT through the Government agency VSNL also. In the case of later international matches organized by BCCI they did not ask for this facility for the reason that their foreign agent has arranged direct up linking with the Russian Satellite Gorizon. In both cases, they wanted the permission to import the telecasting equipment along with the personnel to operate it by moving it to places all over the country wherever the matches were to be played. They claimed this licence, or permission, as it may be called, as a matter of right said to be flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They say that the authorities are bound to grant such licence/permission, without any conditions, all that they are entitled to do, it is submitted, is to collect technical fees wherever their services are availed, like the services of VSNL in the case of Hero Cup matches. This plea is in principle no different from the right to establish and operate private telecasting stations. In principle, there is no difference between a permanent TV station and a temporary one; similarly there is no distinction in principle between a stationary TV facility and a mobile one; so also is there no distinction between a regular TV facility and a TV facility for a given event or series of events. If the right claimed by the petitioners (CAB and BCCI) is held to be constitutionally sanctioned one, then each and every citizen of this country must also be entitled to claim similar right in respect of his event or events, as the case may be. I am of the opinion that no such right flows from Article 19(1)(a).