2017 (8) TMI 1496 - SC - Indian Laws

Cable Operator Service - Telecasting/Broadcasting rights are leased out by the organizing body - Held that - 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 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 DD1 (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. 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 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. Appeal fails and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of re-telecast of live cricket signals by cable operators.
2. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007.
3. Interpretation of Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
4. Rights of content owners under the Media Rights Agreement.
5. Constitutional validity under Article 19(1)(a).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Re-telecast of Live Cricket Signals by Cable Operators:
The core issue is whether cable operators can legally re-telecast live cricket signals received by Prasar Bharati under Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007. The respondents objected to cable operators retransmitting these signals to viewers not linked to Prasar Bharati's terrestrial and DTH networks. This re-telecast was perceived to be mandated by Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995, which requires cable operators to carry notified Doordarshan channels, including DD1 (National), which retransmits the live cricket signals.

2. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007:
Section 3 mandates content rights owners to share live broadcasting signals of national importance with Prasar Bharati for re-transmission on its terrestrial and DTH networks. The respondents argued this should not extend to cable operators, who then provide these signals to their subscribers, bypassing the need to subscribe to specific sports channels. The court held that Section 3's mandate is confined to Prasar Bharati's terrestrial and DTH networks and does not extend to cable operators.

3. Interpretation of Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995:
Section 8 obligates cable operators to carry Doordarshan channels notified by the Central Government. The court noted that while DD1 (National) is one such channel, the legislative intent of Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, is not to be controlled by Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995. The court emphasized that Section 3 operates independently and is strictly limited to Prasar Bharati's networks.

4. Rights of Content Owners under the Media Rights Agreement:
The respondents, including Star India Pvt. Ltd. and ESPN Software Pvt. Ltd., argued that their rights under the Media Rights Agreement would be infringed if the High Court's interpretation was upheld. They contended that the telecast of cricket matches is akin to a cinematograph film under the Copyright Act, 1957, and any curtailment of these rights should be strictly construed. The court acknowledged the existence of these rights but emphasized that Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, curtails these rights only to the extent necessary for Prasar Bharati's re-transmission on its networks.

5. Constitutional Validity under Article 19(1)(a):
The BCCI argued that an extended interpretation of Section 3 would infringe its rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which includes the right to receive information. However, the court agreed with Dr. Rajeev Dhavan's contention that the issue at hand does not attract Article 19(1)(a) as it merely makes the "slice of the cake a little smaller" and does not constitute a violation of the right to receive information.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the live feed received by Prasar Bharati under Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007, is solely for re-transmission on its terrestrial and DTH networks and not for cable operators. The appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was affirmed, emphasizing the independent operation of Section 3 without being influenced by Section 8 of the Cable Act, 1995.