Holding

Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 obliges content owners to share live feeds only for retransmission on Prasar Bharati’s own terrestrial and DTH networks, not for cable operators, and therefore the cable operators’ re‑telecast is not authorized.

Summary

The Union of India challenged the re‑telecast of live cricket feeds, shared by Star India and ESPN with Prasar Bharati under Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, by cable operators under Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The petitioners argued that the Sports Act only permits retransmission on Prasar Bharati’s own terrestrial and DTH networks, and that extending the mandate to cable operators would infringe the content owners’ rights and possibly violate Article 19(1)(a). The Court examined the objects and language of the Sports Act, the Cable Act, and the Prasar Bharati Act, concluding that Section 3 of the Sports Act is to be read strictly and operates independently of Section 8 of the Cable Act. Consequently, the live feed shared with Prasar Bharati cannot be retransmitted by cable operators. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order.

Issues considered

The scope of Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 – whether it authorises retransmission of shared live feeds by cable operators.
Whether Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, can be read to extend the mandatory sharing obligation of the Sports Act to cable operators.
Whether the re‑telecast by cable operators infringes the copyright/broadcasting rights of the content owners and violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995s. 3, s. 8, s. 8(1), s. 8(2), s. 8(3)
Copyright Act, 1957s. 2(f), s. 37
Prasar Bharati Act, 1990s. 12(3)(c)
Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007s. 3, s. 3(1), s. 3(2), s. 3(3)

Subjects

Sports broadcastingMandatory sharingCable televisionPrasar BharatiSection 3 Sports ActSection 8 Cable ActCopyrightArticle 19ExpropriationTelevision rights

Judgment

[2017] 7S.C.R. 483

UNION OF INDIA A
v.
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10732-33 of2017)
AUGUST 22, 2017 B

(RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.)
Sports - Cricket - Telecasting/Broadcasting - Live feed of a
cricket match or other sporting events of national importance -
Retelecast of the signals shared by respondent no.3 and 4 with
Prasar Bharati by Cable operators - Held: Under s.3 of the Sports C
Act, 2007, the live feed received by Prasar Bharati from content
rights owners or holders is only for the purpose of re-transmission
of the said signals on its own terrestrial and DTH networks and not
to Cable Operators so as to enable the Cable TV operators to reach
such consumers who have already subscribed to a cable network - D
Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar
Bharati) Act, 2007 - s.3 - Cable Television Networks (Regulation}
Act, 1995 - s.8 - Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 - s.12(3)(c).
Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 - Object
of its legislation - Discussed. · · - E
Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar
Bharati) Act, 2007 - Object of its legislation - Discussed.
Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 - Object of its legislation -
Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Co_urt F
HELD: 1.1 Section 12(3)(c) of the Prasar Bharati Act,
1990 enables the Prasar Bharati "to negotiate for purchase of, or
otherwise acquire, programmes and rights or privileges in respect
of sports and other events, films, serials, occasions, meetings,
functions or incidents of public interest-for 13 broadcasting and G
~,.,, establish procedures for the allocation of such programmes, rights
or privileges to the services. (Para 13)(490-CI
1.2 The Cable Act was enacted in the y!!ar 1995 to regulate
the operation of cable television network which had come into
India around that time. Cable television was a new experience
H
483
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A for the Indian viewers who, overnight, had access to a large
·number of foreign channels carrying different kinds and forms of
entertainment and information. While it is correct that some of
the channels available on cable television network were
lndianized in content, there was a apprehension, and perhaps
B justified, that the new tend and upsurge may make Doordarshan
and its regional channels extinct resulting in dissemination of
awareness on national issues. This is evident from the report of
the Standing Committee to whom the Cable T.V. Network
(regulation) Bill 1993 was referred to. This is why Section 8 of
the Cable Act, 1995 was enacted, namely, to obligate Cable TV
C operators to carry news and information concerning the
developments of the country, Government Policies and other such
related matters even to all such households who may have availed
of cable services. In fact, transmission of Doordarshan channels
by Cable Operators is always a complimentary part of any bouquet
D of services that a Cable Operator may make available to a
consumer. [Para 27)(498-C-FJ
1.3 The Sports Act, 2007 which is a later enactment had
altogether a different object for its enactment, namely, to provide
access to the largest number of listeners and viewers, on a free
to air basis, of sporting events of national importance through
E mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals with Prasar
Bharati and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 is a significant provision to
further the objective behind the enactment of the Sports Act,
2007. Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 curtails or abridges the
p rights of a content rights owner or holder and television or radio
broadcasting service provider, as may be. Sharing of revenue
·between the content rights owner or holder and the Prasar
Bharati envisaged by Section 3(2) of the Sports Act, 2007 would
hardly redeem the situation to take the Sports Act, 2007 out of
the category of expropriatory legislation. Section 3 of the Sports
G Act, 2007, therefore, has to be interpreted very strictly. The
plain language of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 makes it clear
that the obligation to share cast on the content rights owner or
holder, etc. with Prasar Bharati is to enable the Prasar Bharati to
transmit the same on "its terrestrial and DTH networks". If the
H legislative intent was to allow Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007
UNION OF INDIA v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA 485

not to operate on its own language but to be controlled by Section A
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 (by an appropriate
amendment thereto). In the absence of any such legislative intent
it will only be correct to hold that Section 3 of the Sports Act, B
2007 operates on its own without being controlled by any of the
conditions or stipulations contained in Section 8 of the Cable Act,
1995. Any other view may have the effect of introducing a fragility
in Section 8 of the Cable Act, a consequence that must surely be
avoided. [Para 28)(498-G-H; 499-A-EJ
2. Section 8 of the Cable Act imposes an obligation on the C
Cable Operators to carry/transmit such Doordarshan channels
or the channels operated by or on behalf of Parliament, as may
be, notified in the Official Gazette. The legislature has not
specified any particular channel which must be mandatorily carried
by Cable Operators. The task has been left to the Central D
Government. It will, therefore, be not wrong to understand the
obligation cast on Cable Operators to transmit the DDl (National)
channel and the transmission of Live feed of major sports events
of national importance on the said channel by the Doordarshan
as a matter of mere coincidence instead of a legislative mandate.
Hypothetically, it is always open to the Central Government to E
denotify DDl (National) from the notified channels in the
notification under Section 8 of the Cable Act. Surely, the effect
and operation of Section 3 of the Sports Act cannot be left to be
decided on the basis of the discretion of the Central Government
to include and subsequently exclude or not to include at all the F
DDl (National) channel in a notification to be published under
Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995. Insofar as DTH network of
private operators is concerned, the same does not even come
under the operation of a Cable Operator. [Para 291[499-F-H; 500-
A]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.10732-
l 0733 of2017.
From the final Order and Judgment dated 04-02-2015 passed by
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPANo.1327 of2007 and Writ
Petition ( C) No.8458 of2007 respectively
H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A WITH
C.A. Nos.10734-10735, 10736-10737and10738-10739 of2017.
· Dr. Rajeev Dhavan and Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Advs., Rajeev Sharma,
Sahil Bhalaik, Pratishth Kaushal, Md. Rashid Saeed, Vivek Sarin, Ashish
Kumar, Md. Danish, Vijay Jha, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Advs. for the
B Appellant.
Kuna! A. Cheema, Addi. Govt. Adv., Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,
Govt.Adv., Harish Salve, P. Chidambaram,A.M. Singhvi, Sudhir Chandra,
Gopal Jain, Amit Sibal, Sr. Advs., Sai Krishna Rajagopal, Sidharth Chopra,
Ms. Sneha Jain, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms.Akansha Munjhal, Ms. Julien
c George, Yatinder Garg, Ms.Kirti Pujari, Manish Kumar, Shreyas Jain,
Shivam Singh, Gopal Singh, Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, Ms. Ranjeeta
· Rohatgi, Prateek Chadha, Vinay Tripathi, Yogesh K. Ahirrao,
Harshvardhan Jha, Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adarsh Upadhyay, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave
Petitions.
2. The precise origin of the game of cricket, though largely
unknown, has been traced, atleast, to late 15th Century England. With
E the expansion of British Empire the game of cricket travelled to different
parts of the globe including India. Today, ifthere has to be a national
game in India, cricket would certainly be a front-runner. The packed
stands in all cricketing venues is certainly not the full picture. Live
telecast of all major cricketing events, domestic and international, is
beamed to millions of homes in the country.. Telecasting/Broadcasting
F rights are leased out by the organizing body i.e. Board of Control for
Cricket in India (hereinafter referred as the "BCCI") through competitive
bidding. These signals (live feeds) are transmitted to millions of Indian
homes by the Doordarshan; cable operators and Direct-to-Home (DTH)
operators. The rights of these entities in respect of the live telecast of
G major cricketing events in the country and the consequential revenue
implications are the core issues arising in these groups of appeals which
have been filed in the following circumstances.
3. BCCI is the "approved" nation~l level body holding virtually
monopoly rights to organize cricketing events in the country. Grant of
H telecasting rights of these events is, therefore, a major source ofrevenue
UNION OF INDIA v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA 487
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

for the BCCI. There is currently in force a Media Rights Agreement by A
and between Star India Private Ltd. and BCCI effective from April
2012 till March 2018 under which Star India Private Limited [respondent
No.4 in the Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos.4574-4575 of 2015] has been granted exclusive rights to telecast
cricketing events that take place in the country during the currency of B
the period of the agreement.
4. Star India Private Limited, in turn, has engaged ESPN Software
Pvt. Ltd. [respondent No.3 in the Appeals arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Nos.4574-4575 of2015] for distribution, inter alia, of
the telecast of all cricketing events covered by the Media Rights C
Agreement.
5. Under Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory
Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 [hereinafter referred to as "the
Sports Act, 2007"], the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are obliged to share the
live broadcasting signals of sporting events of national importance with
the Prasar Bharati (which owns the erstwhile Doordarshan's channels/ D
networks) for retransmission of the same through its terrestrial and Direct-
to-Home networks. The Respondents have no objection sharing the live
feed to the above extent. In fact they have not challenged the vires/
validity of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007. What is being objected to
and, therefore, challenged in the writ proceedings leading to the present E
appeals is the retelecast of the signals shared by the Respondents 3 and
4 with Prasar Bharati under Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 by Cable
Operators to millions of other viewers, who may not necessarily be linked
to the Prasar Bharati 's terrestrial and DTH networks but are subscribers
of such cable operators or other DTH service providers. Such retelecast
of the signals received by the Prasar Bharati under Section 3 of the F
Sports Act, 2007 by the Cable Operators flow from the operation of
Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
(hereinafter referred to as "the Cable Act, 1995") which provision has
been perceived to require Cable Operators to mandatorily carry in their
cable service such Doordarshan channels that may be notified by the G
Central Government under the said Section 8 of the Cable Act. As DD
1(National) is one of the channels mandatorily required to be carried by
the Cable Operators (due to its maximum reach) and the live telecast of
cricketing events which the content rights owners/holder is obliged to
share with Prasar Bharati under Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 ·is
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A retransmitted through the said Doordarshan channel i.e. DD 1(National)
the cricketing events are telecast to millions of viewers by Cable
Operators who otherwise charge the subscribers. By virtue of the
aforesaid arrangement Cable Operators do not have to subscribe to the
specific sports channels of the respondents as they are getting the live
feed of cricketing events free of cost. The legality and correctness of
B
the aforesaid arrangement is the central issue in the present group of
appeals.
6. Not willing to accept the aforesaid perception of Section 3 of
the Sports Act and the consequential position, the BCCl and its original
assignee one Nimbus Communications Limited had moved the High Court
c of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (No. 7655 of2007) seeking directions to
the Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation and the Union of India to
encrypt Doordarshan 's Satellite Transportation Feed oflive broadcasting
signals of cricket matches organized by the BCCI to the Doordarshan
Kendras and transmission towers throughout India for subsequent
. D broadcasts on Doordarshan's terrestrial and DTH networks. An
appropriate declaratory relief to the effect that no television network,
DTH network, Multisystem network or local cable operator can
broadcast such events without a licence from the content rights owners/
holder was also sought. The said writ petition (No.7655 of2007) was
dismissed by the learned single judge of the High Court primarily on the
E ground that the matter relates to policy and, therefore, is beyond judicial
reach and scrutiny. Aggrieved LPA No.1327 of 2007 was filed before
the High Court.
7. Writ Petition (No.8458 of2007) was also filed initially by BCCI
and its erstwhile assignee Nimbus for striking down Section 3 of the
F Sports Act, 2007 insofar as it relates to cricket test matches and also
striking down the notification dated 13'h September, 2000 issued by the
Central Government notifying DDI (National) channel and DD (News)
channel as mandatory channels to be carried compulsorily by the Cable
Operators. In the same writ petition (No.8458 of2007) the notifications
G dated 3'd July, 2007 and l 9'h October, 2007 notifying the sporting events
mentioned therein in respect of cricket to be of national importance were
also challenged. Also challenged is the order of the Government of
India dated 29.05.2007 by which Clause 7.9 was added to the Licence
Agreement of DTH Services. Clause 7.9 is in the following terms:
H "The licencee shall carry or include in his DTH services the TV
UNION OF INDIA v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA 489
[RAN JAN GOGOi, J.]

Channels which have been notified for mandatory and compulsory A
carriage as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 as amended, failing which the
licensor shall be at liberty to take action as per clause 20. l of this
Agreement."
8. Subsequently, ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. and Star India B
Pvt. Ltd. had been imp leaded as petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in the aforesaid
writ petitions in view of Media Rights Agreement effective from April
2012 upto March 2018, as referred to above.
9. The aforesaid appeal (LPANo.1327 of2007) and Writ Petition
(No.8458 of2007) were allowed by the Division Bench by holding that c
on an interpretation of the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Act,
2007 and Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995 the signals received by Prasar
Bharati from the respondents should not be placed in the designated
Doordarshan channels which are to be compulsorily carried by the Cable
Operators under Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995. Aggrieved the present
appeals have been filed by the Union of India, Prasar Bharati, Home D
Cable Network Private Limited and Sopan Foundation.
10. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General
(as he then was) appearing for the Union oflndia and Prasar Bharati, S/
Shri Harish Salve, P. Chidambaram, Sanjay Hegde, A.M. Singhvi, Sudhir
Chandra, Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsels appearing for Star India E
Private Limited, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior.Counsel appearing
for Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. and Sopan Foundation and Shri Amit
Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the BCCI.
11. At the outset, it would be appropriate to refer to and wherever
necessary to extract the relevant statutory provisions under the Prasar F
Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 (hereafter referred
to as "the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990"), Sports Act, 2007 and Cable Act,
1995 and also to notice the object behind the enactments in question.
12. Under Section 3 of the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, Prasar
Bharati has been established as a Corporation to discharge the functions G
of erstwhile Akashvani and Doordarshan. Under Section 12 of the Prasar
Bharati Act the primary duty of the Corporation is to organize and conduct
public broadcasting services to inform, educate and entertain the public
and to ensure a balanced development of broadcasting on radio and
television. Section 12(2)(e) of the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 clearly H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A stipulates that Prasar Bharati shall, inter alia, be guided by the objective
of "providing adequate coverage to sports and games so as to
encourage healthy competition and the spirit of sportsmanship."
It, therefore, appears that one of the main objectives behind the
incorporation of Prasar Bharati is to provide an adequate coverage to
sports and games for the purpose(s) already noticed.
B
13. Specific notice would be required to be taken, in the light of
the contentions advanced, which will be noticed later, of the provisions
contained in Section 12(3)(c) of the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 which
enables the Prasar Bharati "to negotiate for purchase of, or otherwise
acquire, programmes and rights or privileges in respect of sports
C and other events, films, serials, occasions, meetings, fanctions or
incidents of public interest for broadcasting and to establish
procedures for the a/location of such programmes, rights or
privileges to the services."
14. We may now turn to the provisions of the Cable Act, 1995.
D The object of the Cable Act, 1995 as indicated.in the preamble is to
regulate the operation of cable television networks in the country and
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
15. Section 3 of the Cable Act, 1995 stipulates the necessity of
registration as a cable operator in order to operate a cable television
E network. Section 2(aiii) defines "cable operator" in the following tenns.
"2(aiii) "cable operator" means any person who provides cable
service through a cable television network or otherwise controls
or is responsible for the management and operation of a cable
television network and fulfils the prescribed eligibility criteria and
F conditions;"
16. Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995 as amended by Act No.21 of
2011 with retrospective effect from 25th October, 2011 is in the following
terms:
"8. Compulsory transmission of Certain channels. -( 1) The Central
G
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify
the names of Doordarshan channels or the channels operated by
or on behalf of Parliament, to be mandatorily carried by the cable
operators in their cable service and the manner of reception and
re-transmission of such channels:
H
UNION OF INDIA v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA 491
[RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

Provided that in areas where digital addressabl.e system has A
not been introduced in accordance with the provisions of sub-
section (1) of section 4A, the notification as regards the prime
band is concerned shall be limited to the carriage of two
Doordarshan terrestrial channels and one regional language
channel of the State in which the network of the cable operator B
is located.
(2) The channels referred to in sub-section (I) shall be re-
transmitted without any deletion or alteration of any programme
transmitted on such channels.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (1), any c
notification issued by the Central Government or the Prasar Bharti
(Broadcasting Corporation oflndia) in pursuance of the provisions
of sub-section (1), prior to the 25th day of October, 2011 shall
continue to remain in force till such notifications are rescinded or
amended, as the case may be.
D
Prior to its amendment, Section 8 was in the following terms:
"8. Compulsory transmission ofDoordarshan channels.-(1) Every
cable operator shall re-transmit,-
(i) channels operated by or on behalf of Parliament in the manner
and name as may be specified by the Central Government by E
notification in the Official Gazette;
(ii) at least two Doordarshan terrestrial channels and one regional
language channel of a State in the prime band,
in satellite mode on frequencies other than those carrying terrestrial
F
frequencies.
(2) The channels referred to in sub-section ( 1) shall be re-
transmitted without any deletion or alteration of any programme
transmitted on such channels.
(3) The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) G
established under sub-section ( 1) of section 3 of the Prasar Bharati
(Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 (25of1990) may,
by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the number and
name of every Doordarshan channel to be re-transmitted by cable
operators in their cable service and the manner of reception and
H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A re-transmission of such channels"
Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995 permits the Central Government
to specify the names ofDoordarshan channels or the channels operated
by or on behalf of the Parliament which are required to be mandatorily
carried by the Cable Operators. As already noticed, by notification dated
B 13'h September, 2000, DDl (National) channel and DD (News) channel
and one regional channel have been notified as mandatorily required to
be carried by the Cable Operators. There are certain subsequent
notifications issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India under Section 8(1) of the Cable Act, 1995, the
subsisting one being dated 5th September, 2013. No specific notice of
c the aforesaid notification would be required to be taken as in substance
and in law the position is no different.
I

17. The next set of statutory provisions which would be required
to be noticed, at this stage, are those to be found in the Sports Act, 2007.
The preamble to the Sports Act, 2007 makes it clear that it has been
D enacted "to provide access to the largest number of listeners and viewers,
on a free to air basis, of sporting events of national importance through
mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting -signals with Prasar Bharati
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3 of
the Sports Act, 2007, on the scope and width of which provision the
E core arguments have been advanced so as to enable the Court to
determine the true scope and purport thereof in the light of the provisions
of Section 8(1) of the Cable Act, 1995 and the notifications issued
thereunder is in the following terms:
"3. Mandatory sharing of certain sports broadcasting signals.-( l)
F No content rights owner or holder and no television or radio
broadcasting service provider shall carry a live television broadcast
. on any cable or Direct-to-Home network or radio commentary
broadcast in India of sporting events of national importance, unless
it simultaneously shares the live broadcasting signal, without its
advertisements, with the Prasar Bharati to enable them to re-
G transmit the same on its terrestrial networks and Direct-to-Home
networks in such manner and on such terms and conditions as
may be specified.
(2) The terms and conditions under sub-section ( 1) shall also
provide that the advertisement revenue sharing between the
H
UNION OF INDIA v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA 493
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

content rights owner or holder and the Prasar Bharati shall be in A
the ratio of not less than 75:25 in case of television coverage and
50:50 in case of radio coverage.
(3) The Central Government may specify a percentage of the
revenue received by the Prasar Bharati under sub-section (2),
which shall be utilised by the Prasar Bharati for broadcasting other B
sporting events."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. At this stage, we may also take note of the following definitions
contained in Section 2 of the Sports Act, 2007:
c
"Section 2-Definitions
1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a)............. , ..... ·.·· ....................................... ' .................. .
xxx
D
(c) "broadcasting service" means assembling, programming and
placing communication content in electronic form on the electro-
magnetic waves on specified frequencies and transmitting it
continuously through broadcasting network or networks so as to
enable all or any of the multiple users to access it by connecting
their receiver devices to their respective broadcasting networks E
and includes the content broadcasting services and the
broadcasting network services;
· (d) "broadcasting networks service" means a service, which
provides a network of infrastructure of cables or transmitting
devices for carrying broadcasting content in electronic form on F
specified frequencies by means of guided or unguided
electromagnetic waves to multiple users, and includes the
management and operation of any of the following:
(i) Teleport/Hub/Earth Station,
G
(ii) Direct-to-Home (DTH) Broadcasting Network,
(iii) Multi-system Cable Television Network,
(iv) Local Cable Television Network,
(v) Satellite Radio Broadcasting Network,
H
-. ,,.~- '·

494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A (vi) any other network service as may be prescribed by the Central
Government;
xxx
(f) "cable tel~vision network" means any system consisting of
closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, control
B and distribution equipment, designed to receive and re-transmit
television channels or programmes for reception by multiple
subscribers;
xxx
c U) "Direct-to-Home (DTH) broadcasting service" means a
service for multi-channel distribution of programmes direct to a
subscriber's premises without passing through an intermediary
such as a cable operator by uplinking to a satellite system;
xxx
D (s) "sporting events ofnational importance" means such national
or international sporting events, held in India or abroad, as may be
notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette to be
of national importance;
xxx
E (t) "terrestrial television service" means a television broadcasting
service provided over the air by using a land-based transmitter
and directly received through receiver sets by the public;"
19. From the above, it can be noticed that underSection 3 of the
Sports Act, 2007, no content rights owner or holder and no television or
F radio broadcasting service provider can carry a live television broadcast
on any cable or DTH network or radio commentary broadcast in India,
of sporting events of national importance unless it simultaneously shares
the live broadcasting signal, without its advertisements, with the Prasar
Bharati to enable them to re-transmit the same on its terrestrial networks
G and Direct-to-Home networks in such manner and on such terms and
conditions as may be specified.
20. On the other hand, Section 8(1) of the Cable Act, 1995 carries
a legislative mandate that every cable television operator is required to
carry, on its network, such Doordarshan channels or channels operated
H
UNION OF INDIA v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA 495
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

by or on behalf of the Parliament, as may be notified by the Central A
Government in the Official Gazette. What is the true legal effect emerging
from a conjoint operation of the two provisions, noticed above, is the
moot question.
21. A narration, though very briefly, of the arguments advanced
may now be made. As the High Court, in the order under challenge, has B
recorded the submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties in
extenso and as the arguments advanced before us are essentially in
reiteration a brief recapitulation of what was argued before us will suffice.
22. Shri Mukul' Rohatgi, learned Attorney General (as he then
was) who has argued the case of the appellant (Union oflndia) in the c
main [Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.4574-
4575 of2015] has submitted that the object behind the creation of the
Prasar Bharati by enactment of the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, as evident
from the provisions thereof, is to organize and conduct public
broadcasting services to inform, educate and entertain the public
including, inter alia, to provide adequate coverage to sport-s and D
games so as to encourage healthy competition and the spirit · of
sportsmanship. The object of the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, it is
argued, is to reach the maximum number of citizens and provide access
to news and information to citizens living in the remote villages and
hamlets of the country. Similarly, the object behind the enactment of the E
Sports Act, 2007 is to provide access of sporting events of national
importance to largest number of listeners and viewers on free to air
basis. It is in the above light that the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports
Act, 2007 and Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995 have to be construed.
Shri Rohatgi, has submitted that the aforesaid provisions should not be
read and understood to be confined to re-transmission of the live signals F
compulsorily shared with Prasad Bharati by the content owners only on
the terrestrial and DTH networks of Prasar Bharati. Any such view,
according to Shri Rohatgi, would be counter-productive and go against
the mandate of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007. It is also pointed out
the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 to G
contend that the possible loss of revenue arising to the content rights
owners/holder due to the mandatory requirement of sharing live feeds
with the Prasar Bharati has been adequately taken care of by the scheme
of arrangement of revenue contained in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of
the Sports Act, 2007. It is urged that it is in the light of the above that the
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R.

A provisions of Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995 have to be construed. It is
further contended that though the Cable Act, 1995 is anterior to the
enactment of the Sports Act, 2007, Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995
should not be understood to have been whittled down by the enactment
of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 in the absence of any conspicious
indication of such legislative intent in Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007.
B
In fact, according to Shri Rohatgi, the mandatory duty cast on the Cable
Operators by Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995 is another step in the
direction of providing access to the masses which clearly suggests that
the provisions of the two enactments operate harmoniously in their
respective fields without impacting each other.
c 23. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Home Cable Network Private Limited and Sopan Foundation had
also argued the case of the appellant in extenso and, particularly, on the
question of infringement of the provisions of Article 19(l)(a) of the
Constitution oflndia, an aspect to which we will advert to a little later.
D 24. On behalf of the respondents, separate arguments have been
made by S/Shri Harish Salve, P. Chidambaram, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sudhir
Chandra, Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Star
India Private Limited and Shri Amit Sibal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the BCCI. It is contended that the rights of the respondent
E Nos. 3 and 4 (ESPN Software Pvt. Ltd. and Star India Pvt. Ltd.) under
the Media Rights Agreement will be seriously infringed in the present
case ifthe view taken by the High Court is to be left undisturbed. Though
such rights may seemingly come under Section 37 (Chapter VII) of the
Copyright Act, 1957, it is argued that the telecast of the cricket matches
is like production of a cinematograph film within the meaning of Section
F 2(f) of the Copyright Act. BCCI as the organizer is the author of the
Copyright who has assigned the same to Star India Pvt. Ltd. There is a
statutory curtailment of the said right under Section 3 of the Sports Act,
2007, the extent of which must be understood to be confined to the
explicit contours of the said provision which cannot be readily and easily
G extended. Any unwarranted extension would amount to an invasion of
the copyright/broadcasting right of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The
legislation is expropriatory in character. It must, therefore, be strictly
construed. Reference to elaborate case law on the issue has been made
in the very exhaustive arguments advanced. It is accordingly pointed
out that the curtailment of the copyright/broadcasting right of the content
H
UNION OF INDIA v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA 497
[RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

rights owner/holder is circumscribed and is to the extent of a 'must A
share' obligation, which by the express language of Section 3 of the
Sports Act, 2007 is to enable the live feed to be retransmitted by Prasar
Bharati through the terrestrial and DTH networks ofDoordarshan. It is
urged that Section 8(1) of the Cable Act, 1995 engrafts a 'must carry'
obligation and such 'must carry' obligation cannot extend the scope of B
the 'must share' mandate contained in Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007.
Emphasis is laid on the words "its terrestrial networks and Direct-to-
Home networks" appearing in Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 to contend
that the 'must share' mandate must be understood to be to enable the
Prasar Bharati to re-transmit the same on its terrestrial and DTH
· networks only. On behalf of Star India Pvt. Ltd. it is specifically contended C
that a huge amount of revenue of over 3000 crore has been paid by Star
India Pvt. Ltd. towards broadcasting/telecasting rights which must be
allowed to have full effect and any restriction in the exercise of such
right, if at all, can operate only to the extent explicitly provided for in
Section 3 of the Sports Act.
D
25. On behalf of BCCI, Shri Amit Sibal, learned Senior Counsel
has specifically argued that any extended meaning to Section 3 of the
Sports Act, 2007 beyond what flows from its plain language would have
the effect of infringing the rights of the BCCI under Article 19(l)(a) of
the Constitution. Several precedents have been cited to contend that
the right under Article 19( 1)(a) of the Constitution would extend to receipt E
of information also. While the sweep of Article 19(l)(a) is certainly
expansive to include receipt of information also, it is in the context of
above argument of Shri Sibal that we may now recapitulate the short
contention put forward with great force by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned
· Senior Counsel. The same is to the effect that in the present case it is F
not the contention ofBCCI that the provisions ofArticle 19( 1)(g) of the
Constitution have been violated. Insofar as the provisions of Article
19(l)(a) of the Constitution is concerned, Dr. Dhavan has contended
that, at best, the present is a case where the slice of the cake becomes
a little smaller; but that by no means would attract Article 19(1 )(a) of the
Constitution, it is argued. We agree with Dr.Dhavan. G

26. Proceeding further, we deem it necessary to clarify that for
the present case it is not necessary and, therefore, we do not intend to
go into the question raised by the parties with regard to the nature of the
rights conferred by Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957 namely,
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R.

A whether the live telecast of a cricket match amounts to production of
cinematograph film conferring on the author and its assignee the same
inviolable rights that the provisions of the Copyright Act confer on a
copyright holder. Rather, we are of the view that in the facts of the
present case and to answer the issue arising therein it will suffice to
acknowledge the existence of a right in the content rights owner/holder
B
in the Ii ve feed of a cricket match or other sporting events of national
importance. The real issue is one of the expanse of the said right and
the degree of curtailment thereof by virtue of the provisions of Section 3
of the Sports Act, 2007 read with Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995 to
which aspect of the case we will now turn.
c 27. The Cable Act was enacted in the year 1995 to regulate the
operation of cable television network which had come into India around
that time. Cable television was a new experience for the Indian viewers
who, overnight, had access to a large number of foreign channels carrying
different kinds and forms of entertainment and information. While it is
.D correct that some of the channels available on cable television network
were lndianized in content, there was a apprehension, and perhaps
justified, that the new trend and upsurge may make Doordarshan and its
regional channels extinct resulting in dissemination of awareness on
national issues. This is evident from the report of the Standing Committee
to whom the Cable T.V. Network (Regulation) Bill 1993 was referred
E to. This is why Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995 was enacted, namely,
to obligate Cab! e TV operators to carry news and information concerning
the developments of the country, Government Policies and other such
related matters even to all such households who may have availed of
cable services. In fact, transmission ofDoordarshan channels by Cable
F Operators is always a complimentary part of any bouquet of services
that a Cable Operator may make available to a consumer.
28. On the other hand, the Sports Act, 2007 which is a later
enactment had altogether a different object for its enactment, namely, to
provide access to the largest number of listeners and viewers, on a free
G to air basis, of sporting events of national importance through mandatory
· sharing of sports broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati and for maters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3 of the Sports Act,
2007 is a significant provision to further the objective behind the
enactment of the Sports Act, 2007. Though much argument has been
advanced as to whether Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 is expropriatory
H
UNION OF INDIA v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA 499
[RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

in nature, we have no hesitation in holding the said provision of the Act A
to be of such a nature inasmuch as it curtails or abridges the rights of a
content rights owner or holder and television or radio broadcasting service
provider, as may be. Sharing of revenue between the content rights
owner or holder and the Prasar Bharati envisaged by Section 3(2) of
the Sports Act, 2007 would hardly redeem the situation to take the Sports B
Act, 2007 out of the category of expropriatory legislation. Section 3 of
the Sports Act, 2007, therefore, has to be interpreted very strictly. Not
only we do not find in the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007
any recognition of the requirement stipulated in Section 8 of the Cable
·Act, 1995, the plain language of the said provision i.e. Section 3 of the
Sports Act, 2007 makes it clear that the obligation to share cast on the C
content rights owner or holder, etc. with Prasar Bharati is to enable the
Prasar Bharati to transmit the same on "its terrestrial and DTH networks".
Ifthe 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 D
intent either in Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 or in Section 8 of the
Cable Act, 1995 (by an appropriate amendment thereto). In the absence
of any such legislative intent it will only be correct to hold that Section 3
of the Sports Act, 2007 operates on its own without being controlled by
any of the conditions or stipulations contained in Section 8 of the Cable
Act, 1995. Any other view may have the effect of introducing a fragility E
in Section 8 of the Cable Act, a consequence that must surely be avoided.
29. Section 8 of the Cable Act imposes an obligation on the Cable
Operators to carry/transmit such Doordarshan channels or the channels
· operated by or on behalf of Parliament, as may be, notified in the Official
Gazette. The legislature has not specified any particular channel which F
must be mandatorily carried by Cable Operators. The task has been left
to the Central Government. It will, therefore, be not wrong to understand
the obligation cast on Cable Operators to transmit the DDI (National)
channel and the transmission of Live feed of major sports events of
national importance ()n the said channel by the Doordarshan as a matter
of mere coincidence instead ofa legislative mandate. Hypothetically, it G
is always open to the Central Government to denotify DDl (National)
from the notified channels in the notification under Section 8 of the Cable
Act. Surely, the effect and operation of Section 3 of the Sports Act
cannot be left to be decided on the basis of the discretion of the Central
H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R.

A Government to include and subsequently exclude or not to include at all
the DD 1 (National) channel in a notification to be published under Section
8 of the Cable Act, 199.5. Insofar as DTH network of private operators
is concerned, the same does not even come under the operation of a
Cable Operator.
B 30. Needless to say our conclusions above do not, in any manner,
impact or effect the rights of the appellant under Section 12(3)(c) of the
Prasar Bharati Act which rights always remain available for exercise, if
so desired.
31. On the basis of the above discussions, we, therefore, come to
c the conclusion that under Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 the live feed
received by Prasar Bharati from content rights owners or holders is only
for the purpose ofre-transmission of the said signals on its own terrestrial
and DTH networks and not to Cable Operators so as to enable the
Cable TV operators to reach such consumers who have already
subscribed to a cable network.
D
32. For the aforesaid reasons, all the appeals will have to fail.
They are accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 4'h
February, 2015 passed by the High Court is affirmed.

Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.