- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Prasar Bharati v. Board Of Control For Cricket In India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Prasar Bharati filed Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 4572-4575 of 2015 challenging an order of the High Court dated 04-02-2015. The dispute concerns telecast arrangements for ICC World Cup 2015 cricket matches and the statutory framework governing mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals. The Supreme Court had previously passed an interim order suspending the impugned High Court decision. In this order dated 20-02-2015, the Court considered whether to modify that interim relief and addressed certain practical suggestions offered by the respondents pending final hearing.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner – Prasar Bharati
- Maintained that setting up an additional or special television channel to telecast the World Cup matches is commercially unviable and technically unfeasible within a reasonable time.
Respondents (BCCI & Ors.)
- Proposed two interim measures: (a) creation of an extra/special channel for the telecast, and (b) insertion of a scrolling disclaimer stating that the channel showing the event “is meant only for Doordarshan.”
- Respondent No. 4 offered to provide its expertise and personnel to assist Prasar Bharati in establishing the additional channel.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court expressly declined to entertain detailed submissions on the merits so as not to prejudice either side before final hearing. It examined the two interim suggestions placed by the respondents:
- Extra/Special Channel: Accepting Prasar Bharati’s representation that such a channel would be unviable and technically infeasible, and finding no compelling reason to accept Respondent No. 4’s offer of assistance, the Court rejected this suggestion.
- Scrolling Disclaimer: Implementing the proposed scroll would necessitate a definitive interpretation of Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 and Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The Court held that such an exercise would be premature at the interlocutory stage and therefore declined the second suggestion as well.
Given these conclusions, the Court found no basis to alter its earlier interim order.
Holding and Implications
Interim order continued: The suspension of the High Court’s order dated 04-02-2015 shall remain in force until further orders.
Implications: The parties retain the status quo pending an expedited hearing of the special leave petitions, which the Court directed to be listed on a Tuesday in July 2015. The order affects only the immediate parties and sets no new precedent.
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4572-4573 of 2015 Prasar Bharati … Petitioner(s)
Versus
Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. … Respondent(s)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 4574-4575 of 2015
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. It is our considered view that at this stage we ought not to consider the submissions made on behalf of the parties on the merits of the controversy as the same may have the effect of prejudicing either of the parties.
3. We have considered the suggestions put forward on behalf of the respondents. The first suggestion is with regard to setting up of an extra/special channel which has been contended by Prasar Bharati to
Page 2
be unviable and technically unfeasible within any reasonable period of time. Though an offer has been made on behalf of respondent No. 4 to make available its expertise and personnel to aid the Prasar Bharati, we are not inclined to consider the said offer made on behalf of respondent No. 4. The first suggestion put forward therefore does not merit acceptance.
4. Insofar as the second suggestion i.e. putting up a scroll to the effect that "the channel displaying the sports event (concerned ICC World Cup 2015 matches) is meant only for Doordarshan" has received our consideration. Acceptance of the said suggestion would be understanding the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 and Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 in a particular manner which is not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. We, therefore, decline to accept the said second suggestion advanced on behalf of the respondents.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the interim order passed earlier to the effect that the impugned order dated 04.02.2015 of the High Court shall remain suspended should continue until further orders. We order accordingly. However, in view
Page 3
of the importance of the matter, we direct that the special leave petitions be heard at an early date. List on a Tuesday in the month of July, 2015. The parties may exchange pleadings, if required, in the meantime.
..........………………………J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
…..........……………………J.
[PRAFULLA C. PANT]
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 20, 2015.
Alert