Swatanter Kumar, J.:— Arguments in the present case have been addressed for quite sometime. It is likely to take further time. The contention raised on behalf of defendant, particularly by defendants No. 3 & 4 is that the injunction order passed by this Court is seriously prejudicing their interest. They further prayed that at least for the remaining two matches of India-South Africa Series, the interim order may be varied. The parties have raised serious issues of facts and law. It may not be possible to conclude the hearing and pronounce the orders today itself. Furthermore the Court is of the considered opinion that this matter involves certain technical notices in regard to capacity of Parsar Bharti to frame its regulations, BCCI's power to put an absolute bar or any other such bar, which may be unfair. The BCCI having given its rights for the two series in question to the Parsar Bharti has retained its copyright, is not really raising any serious objections either way. It must be noticed that the News Channels cannot be treated at parity with total commercial channels and they must act in a larger interest of the public in ensuring that the cricket news reaches all parts of the country or even overseas. Learned counsel for the Parsar Bharti without prejudice to their rights and contentions has in fact vehemently argued that the restriction imposed by them under the New Access Rules is just, fair and proper and they are legally competent to do so and agreed to enhance the time (cap time to four minutes). Further with a qualification that a news channel will not prefix or even run scroller before, during or after by adding commercial advertisements by a scroller or otherwise and will not carry out any programming of the entire time.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defendants particularly defendants 1, 3 and 4 respectively submit that Parsar Bharti has no legal or otherwise any other right to impose such restriction, while taking the plea of discrimination, the DD News Channel has no such restriction and is given time for 102 minutes (as, per the documents by the plaintiff itself). It is also contended on behalf of the plaintiff that they are paying more than Rs. 1 crore per hour of match and as such they cannot without commercial interest permit the defendants to use any further time and DD News is their channel as such they can permit them any time limit. Learned counsel for plaintiff'submits that they have no intention so as to restrict totally the news channels even from reasonably depicting the news in relation to the matches. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that there is apparent discrimination made by the plaintiff between the news channels itself. The DD News Channel has no restriction while upon all other channels, this restriction has been imposed.
3. It is also their contention that the defendants are also protected under Section 39 of the Copyright Act being a fair dealing. Reliance has been placed on different Judgments of the Courts in that regard. However, according to the plaintiff, there is no unreasonable restriction imposed by them and the action of the defendants cannot be termed as fair dealing in accordance with the provisions of section 39, the transaction in question being entirely a commercial transaction.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, some interim arrangements are to be made so as not to totally frustrate the right of the news channels to give news in relation to cricket matches, as was said during the course of hearing that the news channels give news every half an hour. It cannot be stated to be in public interest that one news must be repeated every half an hour. The news channels can certainly regulate giving such news so as to put certain restrictions even if their contentions have some merit. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and keeping in view that the learned counsel appearing for the parties have not seriously opposed passing of interim directions, it is directed as under:—
(a) The news channels would be regulated in terms of the same clause as stated in the rules of the Parsar Bharti on record except to the extent that the maximum cap-limit of two minutes shall stand extended to seven minutes in 24 hours.
(b) The use of this time shall only be for giving cricket news without any commercial program, advertisements before, during and after the cricket news. However, they would be at liberty to show any news or important events during that period as well.
5. It will be desirable to invite a technical opinion of the experts. Thus, it is directed that a meeting shall be held by the Addl. Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India, New Delhi who shall chair the meeting. In the meeting representatives of BCCI, Parsar Bharti and two representatives of all the news channels and the Officers from TRAI and any other technical expert as the Chairman of the Committee may like to induct, would attend the meeting. This meeting shall be held within 10 days from today and would examine the entire matter in regard to such contracts, imposition of restrictions afore-referred, the possible commercialisation alleged by the plaintiffs and plea of public interest raised by the defendants and its effect thereof. They shall give their opinion in regard to technical aspects of the matter as well as the feasibility of the time keeping in view the larger public interest. The Committee will not be influenced by the rules or the instructions issued by the Parsar Bharti or the Governmental department except the Legislative enactment controlling the transaction in question. The report shall be submitted to this Court before the next date of hearing.
6. List this case for further directions and arguments on 12th December, 2005.
7. The extended time limit is to regulate 24 hours only relating to news channels and would in no way affect other activities of the plaintiff or parties to the suit. The above directions have been issued keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as an interim measures and are not to be treated as a precedent.
8. A copy of this order be issued to the parties under the signatures of the Court