1995 (2) TMI 406 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to telecast through an agency of choice.
2. Government's monopoly over terrestrial signals and telecasting.
3. Conditions imposed by the Government for creating terrestrial signals and uplinking to a foreign satellite.
4. Fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Summary:

1. Right to Telecast through an Agency of Choice:
The Supreme Court examined whether an organizer or producer of any event has the right to get the event telecast through an agency of his choice, whether national or foreign. It was held that while the right to telecast is part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The Court emphasized that airwaves are public property and must be used for the public good, which includes ensuring plurality and diversity of views.

2. Government's Monopoly over Terrestrial Signals and Telecasting:
The Court addressed whether the Government or its agencies like Doordarshan have a monopoly over creating terrestrial signals and telecasting them. It was held that such a monopoly is not per se violative of Article 19(1)(a) as long as access to the media is governed by fairness and the paramount interest of the viewers is subserved. The Court highlighted the need for an independent public authority to control and regulate the use of airwaves.

3. Conditions Imposed by the Government:
The Court considered the conditions that can be imposed by the Government for creating terrestrial signals and granting uplinking facilities to a satellite not owned or controlled by the Government. It was held that these conditions must be reasonable and in accordance with the provisions of Article 19(2). The Court noted that the Government's refusal to grant permission to uplink signals to a foreign satellite, unless justified by law made under Article 19(2), would be unconstitutional.

4. Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression:
The Court extensively discussed the content of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and its implications for broadcasting. It was held that this right includes the right to acquire and disseminate information through any media, including electronic media. However, the use of airwaves, being a public property, imposes an inherent restriction on this right. The Court reiterated that any restriction on this right must be reasonable and in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense as laid down under Article 19(2).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the right to telecast is part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression but is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Government's monopoly over terrestrial signals and telecasting is not unconstitutional per se, provided it is exercised fairly and in the public interest. The Court directed the establishment of an independent public authority to regulate the use of airwaves and ensure that the rights of viewers are protected. The civil appeals and the writ petition were disposed of accordingly.