Constitution of India'-Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2)--Freedom of speech and expression-Right to telecast live events over airwaves through satellite uplink facility-Whether part of freedom of speech-Held, per curiam, yes-Held further, as airwaves are public property the right is subject to in-built restrictions.

Constitution of India- Articles 19(1) (a), 19(2)-Whether the right to telecast events includes right to agency of one's choice-Right to establish private telecasting facilities-Held, (Per Majority) the organisers had a right to sell the telecasting rights to any agency-Held, (Per minority) public broadcasting is implicit in the right, private broadcasting is not- In the absence of a licence, the organisers had no right to telecast by an agency of their choice.

Constitution of India-Articles 19(1) (a), 19(2), 14-Telegraph Act, 1885 S.4(1)-Reasonable restrictions on the right-Organisers of event selling telecasting rights to foreign agency-Organisers not obtaining licence for telecast but paying charges for uplinking facility-No demand made for utilising frequencies controlled by government agencies-Government agencies refusing licence or permission to telecast-Whether refusal of licence to telecast malafide and arbitrary-Held (per Majority) Doordarshan could not refuse to telecast particularly since there was no lack of frequency; refusal could be only on grounds specified in Article 19 (2)--Per minority-The objection to a foreign agency telecasting even without a licence was not arbitrary or malafide.

Constitution of India Article 19(1) (a), 19(2)-Telecasting from Indian soil- Whether monopoly in favour of Doordarshan violative of the freedom of speech-Held, (per minority), Monopoly unacceptable-Held (per curiam) control to be in hands of an autonomous public Corporation.

Constitution of India Article 19(1) (a)-Telecasting of events by organisers through foreign agency-Whether the right is in fact a commercial right traceable to Article 19 (1) (g)-Held (Per Majority) organisers are not seeking to enforce a commercial right-Held, (per minority) the right is sought really by the foreign agency and therefore question of violation of such right under article 19 (1)(a) does not arise.

The Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) organised an international cricket tournament in which India and four other countries participated. The CAB wrote to Doordarsban (DD), the official television network, in March 1993 inviting an offer for the amount they would be willing to pay CAB for live television coverage of the cricket matches in either of the alternatives : where Doordarshan would create the host broadcaster signal and undertake live telecast or where any other party would create the host broadcaster signal and DD would purchase the rights to telecast in India. CAB made it clear that in either situation CAB would retain the foreign TV rights. By a subsequent letter CAB informed DD that they were agreeable to DD creating the host broadcaster signal and granting to it the exclusive right for India without Star TV getting it and that the charges for the same would be US$ 800,000. Doordarshan replied quoting a figure of Rs. 1 crore. CAB decided to sell the worldwide TV rights to The Trans World International (TWI) a foreign TV network. On October 18, 1993 CAB informed Doordarshan that it was expecting an offer of at least Rs. 2 crores from DD and that they had received much higher offers from agencies abroad including TWI. However, it offered to DD the right to telecast some of the matches directly and jointly With TWI on condition that DD would allow advertising time which CAB would at liberty to sell to advertisers. DD rejected this offer stating that they would never agree to any joint production with TWI. CAB then offered to sell to Doordarshan the rights of telecast on payment of access fees. DD responded stating that CAB had to pay Rs. 5 lakhs per match as technical charges and that DD would have exclusive rights for the signals generated. With no agreement materialising, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) withdrew from TWI the uplink facility to the INTELSAT Satellite. The permission to import equipment for the telecast was also withdrawn.

CAB then approached the Calcutta High Court with a writ Petition seeking a mandamus to the Government agencies and DD to ensure uninterrupted telecast of the tournament. A Single Judge made an interim order directing the respondents to provide all assistance and cooperation to the petitioners or their agency for uninterrupted telecast and restrained the respondents from tampering with, removing, seizing or dealing with any equipment relating to the telecast. The equipment seized by the Customs Authorities were directed to be released.

In the appeal by the government agencies, a Division Bench of the High Court directed the CAB to pay DD immediately a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to enable DD to immediately telecast the matches. It directed the Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunication, Government of India, to consider and grant provisional permission or licence under Telegraph Act to CAB or TWI within three days from the date of the order.

The government agencies appealed to this Hon'ble Court. A Writ Petition was also filed by CAB. By the time matters was finally heard, the matches has been telecast pursuant to and in accordance with the interim directions issued by this Court.

On behalf of the CAB it was contended that there was implied permission under Telegraph Act granted for uplinking facilities since VSNL had already accepted the fees for the purpose; the action of DD in refusing the telecast of the matches was malafide and authoritarian; the organiser in exercise of its freedom of speech was free to have an agency of its choice for telecasting the matches - DD did not have and could not claim a monopoly in this regard; if an application was made under Section 4 of the Telegraph Act the appropriate authority was bound to grant the same unless it could justify refusal of any of the condition under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The Union of India submitted that there was no licence granted to CAB and there was no question of any implied permission; in the absence of a licence VSNL could not have granted any uplinking facility; the Government of India had taken a policy decision that satellite uplinking from Indian soil should be in the exclusive competence of the Government which in turn could market the rights to other parties; in as much as by telecasting the event by selling its rights, CAB was asserting a right relatable to commerce under Article 19(1)(g) and not under Article 19(1)(a); and that public interest demanded that foreign agencies should not be freely permitted to set up telecasting facilities in India and that state monopoly was a device to ensure use of the resource for public good.