LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of mandatory sports broadcasting signal sharing under the Sports Act, 2007 and its interplay with cable television regulations.
CASE TYPE: Broadcasting Rights/Sports Law
Case Name: Union of India vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.
Judgment Date: 22 August 2017
Introduction
Can cable operators re-transmit sports broadcasts shared with Prasar Bharati? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a dispute between the Union of India and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) regarding broadcasting rights. This case clarifies the extent of mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals. The judgment interprets the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
Case Background
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) holds a near-monopoly over cricket events in India. They lease telecasting rights through competitive bidding. Star India Private Ltd. acquired exclusive rights from April 2012 to March 2018. Star India engaged ESPN Software Pvt. Ltd. for distribution. The Sports Act, 2007 mandates sharing of live signals of national importance with Prasar Bharati. This allows retransmission on Doordarshan’s terrestrial and DTH networks.
The dispute arose because cable operators were re-transmitting these signals through Doordarshan channels. This was due to Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995, which requires cable operators to carry notified Doordarshan channels. The BCCI and other content owners objected to this re-transmission, arguing it infringed on their broadcasting rights. They contended that the mandatory sharing under the Sports Act, 2007, was only meant for Prasar Bharati’s networks, not for cable operators.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-09-13 | Central Government notifies DD1 (National) and DD (News) channels as mandatory channels for cable operators. |
| 2007-05-29 | Government of India adds Clause 7.9 to DTH Services License Agreement, mandating carriage of channels notified under Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995. |
| 2007 | BCCI and Nimbus Communications Limited file Writ Petition (No.7655 of 2007) in the Delhi High Court. They sought to encrypt Doordarshan’s live broadcasting signals and prevent unauthorized broadcasts. |
| 2007 | BCCI and Nimbus file Writ Petition (No.8458 of 2007) challenging Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, and notifications related to mandatory channels and sporting events. |
| 2011-10-25 | Amendment to Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995, with retrospective effect. |
| 2012-04 | Media Rights Agreement between Star India Private Ltd. and BCCI becomes effective. |
| 2013-09-05 | Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issues a notification under Section 8(1) of the Cable Act, 1995. |
| 2015-02-04 | The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allows the appeal (LPA No.1327 of 2007) and Writ Petition (No.8458 of 2007). They held that signals shared with Prasar Bharati should not be placed on channels compulsorily carried by cable operators. |
| 2017-08-22 | The Supreme Court dismisses the appeals and affirms the High Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The BCCI and Nimbus Communications Limited initially filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi. They sought to encrypt Doordarshan’s signals and prevent unauthorized broadcasts. A single judge dismissed this petition, stating it was a policy matter. An appeal was filed.
A separate writ petition also challenged Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, and related notifications. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and the writ petition. It ruled that signals shared with Prasar Bharati should not be placed on channels compulsorily carried by cable operators. The Union of India, Prasar Bharati, and others then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined several key legal provisions. These included the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, the Cable Act, 1995, and the Sports Act, 2007.
✓ The Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, established Prasar Bharati to provide public broadcasting services. Section 12(2)(e) emphasizes adequate sports coverage. Section 12(3)(c) allows Prasar Bharati to acquire broadcasting rights.
✓ The Cable Act, 1995, regulates cable television networks. Section 8 allows the Central Government to mandate carriage of Doordarshan channels. The amended Section 8, effective from October 25, 2011, allows the Central Government to specify Doordarshan channels to be mandatorily carried by cable operators.
✓ The Sports Act, 2007, ensures access to sporting events of national importance. Section 3 mandates sharing of live signals with Prasar Bharati. This sharing is to enable retransmission on Prasar Bharati’s terrestrial and DTH networks.
The court also considered the definitions in Section 2 of the Sports Act, 2007, including “broadcasting service,” “cable television network,” “Direct-to-Home (DTH) broadcasting service,” and “terrestrial television service.”
Arguments
The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:
- Union of India and Prasar Bharati:
- The Prasar Bharati Act aims to reach a maximum number of citizens with news and information, including sports.
- The Sports Act, 2007, intends to provide free access to sporting events of national importance.
- Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, should not be limited to Prasar Bharati’s terrestrial and DTH networks.
- Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995, and Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, should operate harmoniously.
- The revenue sharing mechanism in Section 3(2) of the Sports Act, 2007, compensates for potential losses to content owners.
- Star India Private Limited and BCCI:
- The Media Rights Agreement grants exclusive telecast rights to Star India.
- The telecast of cricket matches is akin to producing a cinematograph film under Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
- Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, curtails these rights and must be strictly construed.
- The ‘must share’ obligation under Section 3 is only for Prasar Bharati’s terrestrial and DTH networks.
- Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995, cannot extend the scope of the ‘must share’ mandate.
- Extending the ‘must share’ obligation infringes on the copyright and broadcasting rights of content owners.
- BCCI argued that any extended meaning to Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, would infringe their rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- Home Cable Network Private Limited and Sopan Foundation:
- Supported the arguments of the Union of India.
- Argued there was no infringement of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as the case was about a smaller slice of the cake.
Submissions by Parties
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India & Prasar Bharati | Harmonious interpretation of Sports Act and Cable Act. |
✓ The Prasar Bharati Act aims to maximize reach for public broadcasting. ✓ The Sports Act intends free access to sporting events. ✓ Section 3 of the Sports Act should not be restricted to Prasar Bharati’s networks. ✓ Revenue sharing under Section 3(2) compensates content owners. |
| Star India & BCCI | Limited scope of mandatory sharing under Sports Act. |
✓ Media Rights Agreement grants exclusive rights. ✓ Telecast is like a cinematograph film under Copyright Act. ✓ Section 3 of the Sports Act must be strictly construed. ✓ ‘Must share’ is only for Prasar Bharati’s networks. ✓ Section 8 of Cable Act cannot expand the ‘must share’ mandate. ✓ Extended sharing infringes on copyright and broadcasting rights. ✓ Extended meaning of Section 3 infringes Article 19(1)(a). |
| Home Cable Network & Sopan Foundation | Supported Union of India. | ✓ No violation of Article 19(1)(a) as it is a matter of a smaller slice of the cake. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the live feed received by Prasar Bharati under Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, can be re-transmitted by cable operators under Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the live feed received by Prasar Bharati under Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, can be re-transmitted by cable operators under Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995. | No. The live feed is only for re-transmission on Prasar Bharati’s terrestrial and DTH networks. | The court held that Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, is an expropriatory provision that must be strictly interpreted. The language of the section clearly states that the shared signals are for Prasar Bharati’s networks only. There is no indication that the provision extends to cable operators. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 | Parliament | Considered the objectives and functions of Prasar Bharati. | To understand the role of Prasar Bharati in public broadcasting. |
| Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 | Parliament | Examined the provisions related to mandatory carriage of Doordarshan channels. | To understand the obligations of cable operators. |
| Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 | Parliament | Interpreted the mandatory sharing provisions. | To determine the scope of the ‘must share’ obligation. |
| Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 | Parliament | Discussed in the context of whether telecasting a cricket match is akin to producing a cinematograph film. | To understand the nature of rights of the content owners. |
| Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957 | Parliament | Discussed the nature of rights conferred by this section. | To understand the nature of rights of the content owners. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed how each submission made by the parties was treated:
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Union of India and Prasar Bharati’s argument that Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, should not be limited to Prasar Bharati’s networks. | Rejected. The Court held that the language of Section 3 clearly limits the sharing obligation to Prasar Bharati’s terrestrial and DTH networks. |
| Star India and BCCI’s argument that Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, must be strictly construed. | Accepted. The Court agreed that Section 3 is an expropriatory provision and must be interpreted narrowly. |
| Star India and BCCI’s argument that Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995, cannot extend the scope of the ‘must share’ mandate. | Accepted. The Court held that Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995, does not control the operation of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007. |
| Home Cable Network and Sopan Foundation’s argument that there was no violation of Article 19(1)(a). | Accepted. The Court concurred that the case was about a smaller slice of the cake and did not attract Article 19(1)(a). |
The Court’s view of the authorities is as follows:
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 | The Court acknowledged the objectives of Prasar Bharati but found that it did not override the specific language of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007. |
| Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 | The Court held that Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995, does not control the operation of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007. The mandatory carriage of Doordarshan channels is a matter of coincidence. |
| Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 | The Court interpreted Section 3 strictly, holding that the ‘must share’ obligation is limited to Prasar Bharati’s terrestrial and DTH networks. |
The Court emphasized that Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, is an expropriatory provision and must be interpreted strictly. The Court stated:
“Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, therefore, has to be interpreted very strictly.”
The Court also noted that the legislative intent was clear:
“If the legislative intent was to allow Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 not to operate on its own language but to be controlled by Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995, there would have been some manifestation of such intent either in Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 or in Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995.”
Additionally, the Court clarified the scope of Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995:
“The legislature has not specified any particular channel which must be mandatorily carried by Cable Operators.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a strict interpretation of the legal provisions. The Court emphasized the following points:
- The explicit language of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, limits the sharing of signals to Prasar Bharati’s terrestrial and DTH networks.
- The expropriatory nature of Section 3 requires a narrow interpretation.
- The absence of any legislative intent to link Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, with Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995.
- The fact that the mandatory carriage of DD1 (National) by cable operators was a matter of coincidence, not a legislative mandate.
The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the text of the law and the principle that expropriatory laws must be strictly construed.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Strict interpretation of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 | 40% |
| Expropriatory nature of the Sports Act, 2007 | 30% |
| Absence of legislative intent to link Sports Act and Cable Act | 20% |
| Coincidental nature of DD1 carriage by cable operators | 10% |
The ratio of fact to law is:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
The key practical implications of this judgment are:
- Cable operators cannot automatically re-transmit sports broadcasts shared with Prasar Bharati.
- Content rights owners have greater control over the distribution of their content.
- Prasar Bharati’s rights are limited to its own terrestrial and DTH networks.
- The judgment clarifies the interplay between the Sports Act, 2007 and the Cable Act, 1995.
This decision may lead to changes in how sports broadcasting rights are negotiated and distributed in India. It may also impact the revenue models of cable operators and content providers.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than dismissing the appeals and affirming the High Court’s judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals under Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, is limited to Prasar Bharati’s terrestrial and DTH networks. Cable operators cannot re-transmit these signals under Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995.
This judgment clarifies the scope of the ‘must share’ obligation under the Sports Act, 2007, and limits the reach of the ‘must carry’ obligation under the Cable Act, 1995. It confirms that the two provisions operate independently. This is a change from the previous position where there was ambiguity about the extent of the sharing obligation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati under the Sports Act, 2007, does not extend to cable operators. The Court emphasized the strict interpretation of expropriatory laws and the specific language of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007. The judgment clarifies the obligations of content rights owners, Prasar Bharati, and cable operators in the context of sports broadcasting.