Prasar Bharti vs. Sahara T.V Network Pvt. Ltd.

1. Arguments in the present case have been addressed for quite some time. It is likely to take further time. The contention rose 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 scrolled before, during or after by adding commercial advertisements by a stroller or otherwise and will not carry out any programming of the entire time. 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. 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.

2. 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. 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 commercialization alleged by the plaintiffs and plea of public interest raised by the defendants and its effect therefore 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. 3. List this case for further directions and arguments on 12th December, 2005. 4. 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. 5. A copy of this order is issued to the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.

Summary
The Delhi High Court asked Prasar Bharti and some private TV news channels to amicably settle their dispute over the use of India-South Africa cricket series footage for which the public broadcaster has obtained exclusive rights from BCCI. The suggestion came from Justice Swatanter Kumar who asked the parties to examine if the dispute can be resolved by extending the two-minute a day limit fixed by Prasar Bharti on use of its exclusive footage of cricket matches. Observing that the information should be used for the benefit of the people at large, the court requested the parties to talk to each other and fixed tomorrow for further hearing. Earlier, the court had on October 28 restrained Sahara TV Network Pvt Ltd, Asianet Communications Ltd, Eanadu TV Network, India TV AND TV 9 from using Prasar Bharti's exclusive footage of India-Sri Lanka and India-South Africa cricket series for producing their own cricket programmes. India TV had questioned the locus standi of the public broadcaster to move the Delhi High Court claiming it was not the owner of the cricketing event in question. In its reply to Prasar Bharti's suit, India TV counsel Pratibha M Singh had submitted that there was no material on record to establish that Prasar Bharti had exclusive rights of the cricketing event. She had contended that the use of excerpts of cricket matches by India TV in its news bulletins did not amount to copyright infringement as it was a bonafide act of fair dealing. Terming the conditions imposed by Prasar Bharti on the quantity of footage that could be used by private TV channels in their news bulletins as illegal, Singh had said "it does not have any sanction of law". India TV accused the public broadcaster of attempting to create a monopoly in its favour in respect of cricket events in India and contended the condition of 30 seconds per bulletin and two minutes for the whole day was illogical and unreasonable. On behalf of Prasar Bharti, counsel A S Chandioke had submitted there was a specific agreement between BCCI and the public broadcaster in this regard. In its suit, Prasar Bharti accused the five private TV channels of using its exclusive footage of the series in violation of terms and conditions prescribed for such use. According to the terms and conditions for the use of exclusive Doordarshan footage of the India-Sri Lanka and India-South Africa cricket series, private TV channels could use the footage only in regular news bulletins and that too not exceeding 30 seconds per bulletin with a total of two minutes per day, Prasar Bharti said in its suit. They could not carry advertisements or messages before, during and after showing such footage, it said.

Earlier, Chandioke had told the court that the BCCI awarded exclusive telecast/broadcast rights for India-Sri Lanka and India-South Africa cricket series to Prasar Bharti on October 24, 2005 and since the contract was still being vetted by BCCI lawyers, the parties had agree that they would be governed by terms and conditions agreed upon by them in April this year for India-Pakistan cricket series. Under this agreement, private channels could not use DD footage for producing their own programmes.

AnalysisThis was a case in respect of dispute about telecast of cricket match. Telecasts of cricket news by news channel cannot be treated at par with commercial channels .The news channel would be regulated in terms of rules framed by the Prasar bharti. As it was clearly stated on behalf of Prasar Bharti, counsel A S Chandioke that ,there was a specific agreement between BCCI and the public broadcaster in this regard. According to the terms and conditions for the use of exclusive Doordarshan footage of the India-Sri Lanka and India-South Africa cricket series, private TV channels could use the footage only in regular news bulletins and that too not exceeding 30 seconds per bulletin with a total of two minutes per day, Prasar Bharti said in its suit. They could not carry advertisements or messages before, during and after showing such footage, it said.