Date: 9 February, 1995
Bench: SAWANT, P.B., MOHAN, S. (J), JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
FACTS
The Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) hosted the sixth nation International Cricket tournament in November 1993. This historic 1995 ruling by the Indian Supreme Court on the air concerns a dispute between the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Cricket Association of Bengal over whether or not the Cricket Association was entitled to grant exclusive television broadcasting to a private organization instead of a Doordarshan. In response, the court examines whether or not Doordardhan could enjoy its control over the creation of terrestrial signals and should dominate their possession over telecasting or not telecasting them.
This disagreement took place in the context of the first days of economic liberalization. This saw the entry of private media in an economic liberalization which had been enter in the field of state- owned media monopoly that is AIR and Doordarshan. The issue was also originating what the public sphere and what body could make up the largest part of the Indian public. The claims made against Doordarshan, Doordarshan argued they had the largest audience reach and thus valid claim to perform monopoly regarding broadcasting.
ISSUES
Did the organizer have the right to air through a foreign institution?
Do government agencies monopolize the generation and broadcasting of terrestrial signals or their rejection?
Is either the airwaves or frequencies come under the public domain or public property?
Can a government agency like DD claim to be the host broadcaster for all events, whether the event is produced or organized by themselves or someone else in the country?
JUDGMENT
Radio waves and frequencies had to be treated as public goods. Their use should be monitored and regulated by government agencies for the public good and to prevent the invention of their rights. Because electronic media involves the use of radio waves, this factor places restrictions on the use of radio waves as it does with other public property.
The Supreme Court has found that the right to communicate and receive information is a form of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. Citizens have the basic right to receive information and to access television broadcasts for this purpose. Radio waves have been involved in law enforcement and can be monitored and regulated by government agencies. This restriction was imposed due to the nature of state ownership in relation to the use of electronic media in relation to restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the central government will take immediate steps to create an independent and autonomous government agency that represents all sectors and interests of society to control and regulate the use of radio waves.
The Supreme Court has stated that diversity of opinions, views, and ideas cannot be guaranteed in an environment controlled by a monopoly, whether it belongs to the state or to another person, group, or organization. “Private broadcasters may be more likely to infringe upon citizens’ freedom of speech than state-run media, as outlined in the statute. Broadcasting media should be controlled by the public, not by the government. This mark is implied in Article 19(1) (a)” of the constitution.
Comments