PUM17 - Respondents

MEMORANDUM FOR THE Respondents TEAMCODE : PUM17
2ND PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON SPORTS LAW
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE MATTERS BETWEEN :
Writ Petition (C) No. _____ / 2018 and Civil Appeal No. ____ / 2018
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . . . . . .PETITIONERS/APPELLANT
VERSUS
BOARD FOR REGULATION OF CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANR . . . RESPONDENTS
Along with SLP(C) No. ___ / 2018 and Civil Appeal No. ____ / 2018
BOARD FOR REGULATION OF CRICKET IN INDIA . . . . . APPELLANT
VERSUS
S TV AND ANR. . . .RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF (RESPONDENTS) BRCI, WICKETS TV (FOR THE WRIT PETITION (C)
AND THE CIVIL APPEAL) , S TV AND STATS TV
1|P age
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sl. No.___________________________________________________________Page No.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
a) Cases Referred--------------------------------------------------------------------5-6
b) Books Referred------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
c) Reports Referred------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
d) Statutes Referred------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
e) Regulation and Byelaws Referred--------------------------------------------- 6
f) Online Resources----------------------------------------------------------------- 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9-11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 13-14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. PLEADINGS 15-39
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2|P age
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
TERMS MEANING
§ Section
¶ Paragraph
& And
A.I.R.
All India Reporter
Anr.
Another
Art. Article
BRCI Board for the Regulation of Cricket in India
GCC Global Council for Cricket
Ltd. Limited
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v. Versus
MANU Manupatra
DB Door Bharati
DCPL Domestic Cable Private Ltd
SLP Special Leave Petition
No. Number
3|P age
CPR Code of Civil Procedure Rules
UK United Kingdom
Etc. Etcetera
UoI Union Of India
ILLJ Indian Labor Law Journal
ILC Indian League for Cricket
TV Television
Pvt. Private
DTH Direct to Home
CTN Cable Television Networks
E.g. Example
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
ICC International Cricket Council
CCI Competition Commission of India
TRP Target Rating Point
COMPAT Competition Appellate Tribunal
4|P age
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. CASES REFERRED
PAGE
S.NO CASE CITATIONS
NO.
Deewab Singh And Ors Vs Rajendra Pd Ardevi And
1 Ors AIR 2007 SC 767 14
Tekraj Vasandi V Union

(1998) ILLJ 341
2 Of India 14
SC
Sukdev Singh Vs Bagat Ram
3 AIR 1975 SC 1331 15
Sabhajit Tewary Vs Union Of India
4 AIR 1975 SC 1329 15
University Of Madras Vs Shanta Bhai
5 AIR 1954 MAD 67 15
Chander Mohan Khanna Vs The National Council
6 Of Educational Research & Training AIR 1992 SC 76 15
Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi

7 (1981)1 SCC 722 16
and Ors
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Vishnu

8 AIR 1966 SC 1593 22
Prasad Sharma and Others
Devinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and AIR 2008 SC 261
9 22
Others
Odyssey Communication Pvt Ltd Vs Lokvidayan
10 Sanghatana And Ors AIR 1998 SC 1642 23
11 S Rangarajan Vs P.Jagjivan Ram And Ors AIR 1989 SCR 204 23
Indian Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd And Ors Vs

[1986] SC 159 ITR
12 Union Of India And Ors 25
856
State Of Rajasthan And Ors Vs Aanjaney Organic

13 SCC 283 SC 159 24, 25
Herbal Pvt Ltd
5|P age
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and

14 2005 (7) SCC 447 26
Others v. Zakir Hussain
Competition Commission Of India Vs Co-

AIR 2017 SC
15 Ordination Committeee Of Artists 27
1449
And Technicians Of W.B Film
Competition Commission Of India Vs Fast Way 2018 (2) SCALE

16 29
Transmission Pvt Ltd And Ors 341
Surinder Singh Barmi Vs Board Of Control For 2013 CompLR 297

17 31
Cricket In India (CCI)
Competition Commission Of India Vs Steel

18 (2010) SCC 744 31
Authority Of India
B. BOOKS REFERRED
1. Competition Law In India : Policy, Issues and Developments - T. Ramappa
2. Law and Sports In India - Developments, Issues And Challenges - Mukul
Mudgal
C. REPORTS REFERRED
1. The Lodha Comittee Report
D. STATUTES REFERRED
1. The Indian Constitution, 1950
2. The Indian Competition Act, 2002
3. The Societies Registration Act, 1860
4. Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act,
2007
6|P age
5. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
E. REGULATIONS AND BYE-LAWS REFERRED
1. TRAI Regulation
2. ICC Bye Laws
3. BCCI Rules and Regulations
F. ONLINE RESOURCES
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.lexisexis.co.in
3. www.scconline.com
4. www.globalcompetitionreview.com
7|P age
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
I. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. ___ of 2018 have approached this Hon'ble Court
under A. 32 of the Constitution of India and further submit to the Suo Motu Jurisdiction
under Art. 139A of Constitution of India.
II. The Petitioners in Special Leave Petition No. ___ of 2018 have approached this Hon'ble
Court under A. 136 of the Constitution of India
III. The Appellant in Civil Appeal No.___ of 2018 have approached this Hon’ble Court under
§53T of the Competition Act, 2002. Leave has been granted accordingly.
IV The Appellants in Civil Appeal No.___ of 2016 have approached this Hon’ble Court
under §15 of the The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. Leave has been
granted accordingly.
All of which is respectfully submitted

By:
Counsels for the Respondants
Place : The Supreme Court of India
8|P age
STATEMENT OF FACTS
[A] BACKGROUND:
¶1. The Board for the Regulation of Cricket in India is the governing body for cricket in
India. It is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in Mumbai. It is a full
member of the Global Council for Cricket, the body responsible for the governance of cricket
at the international level. S TV, a channel, came up with a new league called
the Cricket Tournament League- India in September 2009. BRCI, on August 11, 2011, started
its own league called the India League for Cricket for which the rights were won by Stats TV
for a period of 3 years (2011-2014). Wickets TV, holds the rights to broadcast all BRCI-
organized national-level and international matches from 2014-2019. Door Bharati is India's
largest public broadcasting agency. It is an autonomous body set up by an Act of Parliament
and was formed on 23rd November, 1997. The ILC broadcasting rights were also awarded by
the BRCI to Wickets TV for a period of 10 years (2014-2024), through a closed tender
process.
[B] RELEVANT FACTS:
¶2. BRCI is a regulatory body which sanctions new leagues in India and awards the
broadcasting rights to various channels. The CTLI formed by S TV was not approved by the
BRCI. On June 8, 2010 BRCI sacked the Chairman of BTA from his position and banned all
the players who participated in CTLI. The CCI took suo motu cognizance of the tussle on
January 15, 2011 and found that BRCI was guilty of engaging in anti-competitive practises.
The further appeal to the COMPAT also upheld the CCI’s decision. Stats TV was accused by
the BRCI of spoiling the integrity of the broadcast by prematurely inserting breaks into live
9|P age
telecasts and subsequently was terminated from the contract in 2013. DB Channel
approached Wickets TV that as per law, private broadcasters are obliged to share live
broadcasting signals of sporting events of national importance with DB channel, which also
gave the broadcast for free to other broadcasters. Meanwhile, Farheem Khan and Shaun
Fernandez alleged that BRCI was tainted with corruption, for which the Supreme Court took
suo motu cognizance and appointed an AAG as an interim measure. Rani Dev, a MP filed a
writ petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the process of tender of the broadcasting
rights by the BRCI.
[C] EVENTS THAT UNFOLDED THE PRESENT ISSUES:
¶3. On the 9th of February, 2011, S TV registered a case against the BRCI on the issue of
anti-competitive practises by BRCI in the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court
found BRCI guilty of violating the Competition Act, 2002, more specifically, §4 of the
said Act. The court issued notices to all corporate sponsors, the state cricket associations
and the BRCI against terminating valid contracts of players joining the CTLI. This order
was challenged in the Supreme Court by BRCI.
SLP(C) No. ___/2018: BRCI challenged the order saying they cannot be governed under
the Act.
¶4. In 2012 Stats TV registered a case against the BRCI for wrongfully terminating the
contract. The Bombay High court ruled in favour of Stats TV and an appeal was filed in
the Supreme Court by the BRCI challenging this.
Civil Appeal No. ___/2018: BRCI challenged the order using the TRAI notification.
10 | P a g e
¶5. Wickets TV registered a case against DB Channel and the Union of India challenging the
§7 of the Sports Broadcast Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Rules, 2007
in the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court ruled in favour of Wickets TV. The
UOI, DB Channel and DCPL filed an appeal against this order in the Supreme Court.
Civil Appeal No. ___/2018: The UOI, DB Channel and DCPL challenge this saying that
the Rule was enacted in Public Interest.
¶6. Shaun Fernandez alleged that Sidho Dutt, Chairman of BRCI, ran BRCI like a family
business and Farheem Khan gave two instances where neither the BRCI nor the GCC took
actions against players who were allegedly cheating. The Supreme Court took suo motu
action against these allegations and appointed a AAG as an interim measure. The BRCI
stood against this measure and challenged it.
The BRCI challenged the court by saying that the court cannot look into its internal
functions.
¶7. A writ petition was filed by an MP Rani Dev in the Supreme Court under Article 32,
challenging the award of broadcasting rights to Wickets TV and suggested e-auction for
the tender process rather than a closed tender.
Writ Petition (C) No. _____ / 2018 : BRCI challenged it by questioning the
maintainability of the writ under Article 32.
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear all the matters together as they are
inter-connected.
11 | P a g e
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
I. Whether the Writ Petition filed through Article 32 and the appeals filed by the respective
parties are maintainable under this hon'ble court?
A.1 Whether the BRCI is ‘State’ within the meaning of article 12?
A.2 whether the award of broadcasting rights of the India League for Cricket and other
national-level and international matches to Wickets TV valid?
A.3 Whether the e-auction as sought for in the Petition valid?
II. Whether the registration of BRCI with the Societies Registration act, 1860 is
questionable?
III. Whether the Supreme Court can Suo Motu undertake an overhaul of the BRCI and
Cricket Governance in India?
IV. Whether mandatory sharing of broadcasting signals with DB Channel and the free
transmission of DB Channel further to the cable operators is justified?
V . Whether The BRCI Abused Its Dominant Position And Engaged In Anti-Competitive Practices
Towards S TV?
E.1 Whether the Act is applicable to BRCI or not? And whether BRCI is an 'enterprise'
as defined under § 2(h) of the Act.
E.2 What would be the relevant market in the said case?
E.3 Whether BRCI has a dominant position in the relevant market as determined?
E.4 Whether BRCI has abused its dominant position in the relevant market in
contravention of the provisions of § 4 of the act?
VI. Whether the BRCI abused its dominant position and engaged in anti-competitive
practices towards S TV?
12 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:
I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED THROUGH ARTICLE 32 AND THE APPEALS FILED
BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES ARE MAINTAINABLE UNDER THIS HON'BLE COURT.
The respondents, BRCI and Wickets TV, contend that BRCI is an autonomous body
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is not set up by any statute or
executes any governmental functions. The respondents also submit that the BRCI does not
receive any financial support from the government. The respondents also validate the
award of broadcasting rights to Wickets TV by stating that there are no regulations
regarding this issue, nor is it of any concern to the petitioner. The relationship between the
respondents are on good terms and the in the tender process, the respondent has rightfully
bought the broadcasting rights for ten years. The respondents , furthermore, submits that e-
auction would lead to price-discovery and also lose a lot of proceeds in this process.
II. WHETHER THE REGISTRATION OF BRCI WITH THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT,
1860 IS QUESTIONABLE?
The respondents here question the registration of BRCI as the Societies Registration Act,
1860 is for charitable purposes and is used to promote fine arts or the diffusion of useful
knowledge. The appellant is not under any of the above categories. Hence it is the
contention of the respondents that the appellant is not registered under the right act.
III. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN SUO MOTU UNDERTAKE AN OVERHAUL OF THE
BRCI AND CRICKET GOVERNANCE IN INDIA?
The respondent here contends that the allegations pointed out by the two ex-officers of the
respondent, have not done anything wrong to deserve punishment. It is the contention of
the respondents that the Odisha Spears are in the finals because of their own skill rather
than any internal corruption and the players have not done anything which was not the
13 | P a g e
norm. Hence it is the contention of the respondents that these are false allegations made by
two disgruntled ex-officers.
IV. WHETHER MANDATORY SHARING OF BROADCASTING SIGNALS WITH DB CHANNEL
AND THE FREE TRANSMISSION OF DB CHANNEL FURTHER TO THE CABLE
OPERATORS IS JUSTIFIED?
The contention of the respondents BRCI and Wickets TV is that mandatory sharing of the
broadcasting rights with the petitioners is not justified as this brings the question of
licence. The respondent contends that there would be no need of a licence if the petitioner
was allowed to freely transmit to other cable networks. This affects the respondents
proceeds.
V. WHETHER THE BRCI ABUSED ITS DOMINANT POSITION AND ENGAGED IN ANTI-
COMPETITIVE PRACTICES TOWARDS S TV?
The respondent, S TV, contends that BRCI can be called as an enterprise under Section
2(h) of the Competition Act,2002 as it generates revenue even if it is a not-for -profit
society. The relevant market in the present case, the respondent contends is that it is the
organisation of Cricket leagues/Events in India. The dominance of the appellant, it is
contended that exists and is abused by the appellant.
VI. WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE BROADCASTING CONTRACT BY BRCI WITH
STATS TV JUSTIFIED?
The respondents, Stats TV contend that the appellants have illegally terminated the
contract. Furthermore, the respondents also differentiate ILC with other live sport events
and submit that it is more of an entertainment event rather than a sport event. The
respondents also contend that it is when the match is at the heat of the moment, will the
viewers be viewing the advertisements. Hence the respondents vies that the contract was
illegally terminated.
14 | P a g e
PLEADINGS
I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED THROUGH ARTICLE 32 AND THE APPEALS FILED
BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES ARE MAINTAINABLE UNDER THIS HON'BLE COURT.
A.1 WHETHER THE BOARD OF CRICKET CONTROL OF INDIA IS ‘STATE’ WITHIN THE
MEANING OF ARTICLE 12?
¶1. Board of Control for Regulation in India is an autonomous society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860. There are several cases of societies registered
under Societies Registration Act which have been treated as State but in each of those
cases it would appear on analysis that either Governmental business had been
undertaken by the Society or what was expected to be the Public obligation of the
State had been undertaken to be performed as a part of the Society's function.1
¶2. In a Welfare State, as has been pointed out on more than one occasion by this
hon’ble Court, governmental control is very pervasive and in fact touches all aspects
of social existence. In the absence of a fair application of the tests to be made, there is
possibility of turning every non-government society into an agency or instrumentality
of the State. That obviously would not serve the purpose and may be far from reality.
¶3. A broad picture of the matter has to be taken and a discerning mind has to be
applied keeping the realities and human experiences in view so as to reach a
reasonable conclusion.2
1
Deewan Singh and Ors. vs. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 767
2
Tekraj Vasandi v. Union of India (1988) ILLJ 341 SC
15 | P a g e
¶4. The Society does not have a statutory character like the Oil and Natural Gas
Commission, or the Life Insurance Corporation or Industrial Finance Corporation3. It
is a society incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Societies
Registration Act.4
¶5. For a writ to be maintainable, it needs to be within the Jurisdiction of the Court and
must have a Locus Standi. (Right/Capacity to bring an action) The question is whether
BRCI can be held to be "local or other authority" as defined in.
¶6. These words must be construed 'ejusdem generis' with Government or Legislature
and so construed can only mean authorities exercising governmental functions. They
would not Include persons natural or Juristic who cannot be regarded as
Instrumentalities of the Government.
¶7. The Counsel also contends that non-statutory bodies has only a societal
compliance as required by the law of the land and cannot be argued to be a state under
article 12.5 Where the financial assistance from the State is so much as to meet almost
entire expenditure of the institution, or the share capital of the corporation is
completely held by the Government, it would afford some indication of the body being
impregnated with governmental character. It may be a relevant factor if the institution
or the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected.
¶8. Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication.6
The Counsel submits a 6-point test that defines a "State" under article 12 of the Indian
Constitution which has been explained in the case:
3
Sukdev Singh v. Bagat Ram AIR 1975 SC 1331
4
Sabhajit Tewary vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1329
5
University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, AIR 1954 Mad 67
6
Chander Mohan Khanna vs. The National Council of Educational Research & Training AIR 1992 SC 76
16 | P a g e
Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors.7 in a constitutional
bench :
1. If the entire share capital of the body is in control of the Government, it is
'State'.
2. If the financial assistance given by Government, meets nearly the whole of
the Body`s expenditure, is shows the impregnation of the Governmental
character in the Body.
3. Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that
the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.
4. If the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or
State protected, it is `State`.
5. If deep and pervasive control of the Government is present over the Body, it
is 'State.'
6. If the Corporation performs Public functions, then it is also 'State'.
The Counsel contends that according to the test, BRCI cannot be considered a state as
it does not qualify with any of the mentioned points in the test.
¶9. It cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties like the selection of
an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved in
the game of cricket. These activities can be said to be akin to public duties or State
functions and if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or
rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a petition
under Article 32.
7
(1981)1 SCC 722
17 | P a g e
A.2 WHETHER THE AWARD OF BROADCASTING RIGHTS OF THE INDIA LEAGUE FOR
CRICKET AND OTHER NATIONAL-LEVEL AND INTERNATIONAL MATCHES TO
WICKETS TV VALID?
¶1. The counsel submits that there are no specific laws regarding the award of
broadcasting rights to any specific channel. It is the sole discretion of the society and
is an internal affair of the society.
¶2. There is no public function being executed here. Hence it is not within the the
jurisdiction of this hon’ble court to issue directions on internal decisions.
¶3. The counsel contends that the ten-year contract will result in a good relationship
with Wickets TV which will turn to be good for the sport and will not raise issues
like what happened with Stats TV. The respondents shall mutually benefit from this
new contract and yield positive results.
¶4. By awarding the rights for ten years, Wickets TV will profit more because of
their advertisement rates which will be bolstered. Due to this BRCI will also earn
more profits which will be used to develop, educate and maintain the integrity of the
game
A.3 WHETHER THE E-AUCTION AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE PETITION VALID?
¶1. It is contended that "price discovery" takes a hit when competitors are aware of
each other's capability of bidding.
18 | P a g e
"For example, the surprise element of price discovery is gone if company A knows
that company B will stop at Rs 100 during an e-auction process (if it's a forward
auction, which will be the case here). Company A will then bid for Rs 101. But had it
been sealed tender and there was desperation, if Company A bid Rs 100, company B
could well bid Rs 500.
¶2. Through this process, the respondents lose a lot of proceeds that they get from the
process. The memorandum of association also states 2. (r) To collect funds, and
wherever necessary, borrow with or without security and to purchase, redeem or pay
off any such securities; hence it is contended that the BRCI will use the profit gained
to improve the game of cricket in India.
II. WHETHER THE REGISTRATION OF BRCI WITH THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT,
1860 IS QUESTIONABLE?
¶1. The Societies Registration Act, 1860 (“the Act”) was enacted to improve the legal
condition of societies established for the promotion of literature, science, or the fine arts,
or for the diffusion of useful knowledge or for charitable purposes.8
¶2. Under Section 20 of the Act, Charitable societies, societies established for the
promotion of science, literature, or the fine arts, for instruction, the diffusion of useful
knowledge, the foundation or maintenance of libraries or reading rooms for general use
among the members or open to the public, or public museums and galleries of painting
and other works of art, collections of natural history, mechanical and philosophical
inventions, instruments, or designs9 are governed under the Act.
8
Preamble, Societies Registration Act, 1860
9
Societies Registration Act, 1860
19 | P a g e
¶3. As the Section is very clear, it is contended that BRCI cannot be governed under this
Act as BRCI is a regulatory body of the Sport of Cricket in India. It is furthermore
contended that BRCI is not a charitable society nor is it established for the promotion of
science, literature, or the fine arts, for instruction, or diffusion of useful knowledge as
they indulge heavily and aggressively in competitive pricing and other commercial
activities and thus shows the true nature of the self-claimed Charitable Society.
¶4. Hence BRCI cannot be governed under the Act and therefore, BRCI must be taken
under the wing of the government and must be regulated to preserve the integrity of the
sport of cricket in India and ensure that India’s place in the world market is secure.
III. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN SUO MOTU UNDERTAKE AN OVERHAUL OF THE
BRCI AND CRICKET GOVERNANCE IN INDIA?
¶1. BRCI is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It conducts
cricket tournaments at the domestic and national levels and selects teams to represent the
country in international tournaments as well and is a full member of the GCC, the body
responsible for the governance of cricket in the international level.
¶2. The hon’ble Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance, considering the allegations
made by Farheem Khan.
And illustrated these two incidents :
- One, where the captain of Uttarakhand Unicorns, Jaswit Bajwa was found to have
been batting with a squash ball in his glove to improve his grip. He ended up
scoring a century in that match;
20 | P a g e
- And Two, where Kadam Shinde, an all-rounder from the Uttarakhand Unicorns
was allegedly tampering with the ball during a match against the Nagpur Hawks.
¶3. Shining the ball has been a common and accepted practice since the inception of
organised cricket. It has been in practise ever since the inception of cricket itself.
Even junior players shine the ball to make it smoother. It has been an accepted practise in
cricket. Shining of the ball is usually considered not to be in violation of the Sport's rules.
¶4. The counsel begs the bench to appreciate the practicality of the game. The squash ball
was used to improve the grip of Jaswit Bajwa during his amazing innings in the World
Cup final - and the inner gloves many batsmen wear, some of which have a certain
amount of padding, the finger-stalls inside some gloves to protect finger-tips, or even the
raw steaks people (usually wicketkeepers) were reputed to put inside their gloves to
lessen the impact of the ball. Former players also confirmed that it was also a norm.
"But the MCC, which is responsible for cricket's rules, said Gilchrist had not
contravened the game's laws or spirit."10
¶5. The legality of these actions may further be verified and acknowledged or
questioned by ICC only, and is beyond the purview of this Hon'ble court.
¶6. Also, it is contended that The Supreme Court cannot initiate actions against the
internal matters of a private society.
¶7. The interim order to appoint a Accounts Auditor General is far beyond the powers of
the judiciary.
¶8. There is no law which states that the judiciary can appoint Public Servants to work in
Private bodies. If it does so then BRCI becomes a public servant which may lead to the
removal of its position in the GCC as a member which would endanger the position of
India in the World Market.
10
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/6633873.stm
21 | P a g e
¶9. BRCI does not receive any funds from the Government of India nor is it established
via a statute. It does hold a de facto monopoly as the regulatory body but only because of
this fact BRCI cannot be considered to be a state as BRCI is a full member of the GCC
which vests it such a power. Hence BRCI is not State and since it is registered under the
Societies Act of 1960, the Judiciary may notify the Registrar of Societies to look into
these matters as such is the law said under the Preamble of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860.
IV. WHETHER MANDATORY SHARING OF BROADCASTING SIGNALS WITH DB CHANNEL AND
THE FREE TRANSMISSION OF DB CHANNEL FURTHER TO THE CABLE OPERATORS IS
JUSTIFIED?
¶1. The issue at hand challenges the validity of § 3 (1) of the Sports Broadcasting
Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Sports Act") read with § 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995
(hereinafter referred to as the "CTN Act") where:
3. Mandatory sharing of certain sports broadcasting signals –
(1) No content rights owner or holder and no television or radio broadcasting
service provider shall carry a live television broadcast on any cable or Direct-
to-Home network or radio commentary broadcast in India of sporting events of
national importance, unless it simultaneously shares the live broadcasting
22 | P a g e
signal, without its advertisements, with the Prasar Bharati to enable them to
re-transmit the same on its terrestrial networks and Direct-to-Home networks
in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be specified.11
¶2. From the above, it can be noticed that, no content rights owner or holder and no
television or radio broadcasting service provider can carry a live television broadcast on
any cable or DTH network or radio commentary broadcast in India, of sporting events
of national importance unless it simultaneously shares the live broadcasting signal,
without its advertisements, with the Door Bharati (DB) to enable them to re-transmit the
same on its terrestrial networks and Direct-to-Home networks in such manner and on
such terms and conditions as may be specified.
¶3. §3 of the Sports Act is also an expropriatory legislation and it should be so
interpreted as to cast the least burden on the expropriated owner, which, in the present
case was the content rights owner, namely, the Respondent. Also, where 'Expropriation'
is, The taking of private property for public use or in the public interest. 12 Referring to
the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v.
Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Others13 with reference to the Land Acquisition Act
1894, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
" ... As the Act is an expropriatory Act, that interpretation of it should be
accepted which puts the least burden on the expropriated owner".
¶4. Further, supporting the cause, this humble court in the case of Devinder Singh
and Others v. State of Punjab and Others14, once again with reference to the
11
The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Door Bharati) Act, 2007
12
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Expropriation
13
AIR 1966 SC 1593
14
AIR 2008 SC 261
23 | P a g e
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was an expropriatory legislation, it was held as
:-
" ¶ 41. ...expropriatory legislation, as is well-known, must be strictly
construed..."
¶5. It is, therefore, contended that § 3 of the Sports Act should be construed strictly and
in a manner which casts the least burden on the expropriated owner15, and therefore, that
the simultaneous live broadcasting signal, which is mandatorily to be shared with DB,
could only be utilized by DB for re-transmitting the feed on its own terrestrial networks
and its own DTH networks and not through the network of cable operators by
employing the route of § 8 of CTN Act. § 8 of the CTN Act, could not be read as being
destructive of § 3 of the Sports Act16.
According to The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 :
8. Compulsory transmission of Doordarshan channels—
1) Every cable operator shall, from the commencement of the Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2000, retransmit at
least two Doordarshan terrestrial channels and one regional
language channel of a State in the prime band, in satellite mode on
frequencies other than those carrying terrestrial frequencies.
2) The Doordarshan channels referred to in sub-section (1) shall be re-
transmitted without any deletion or alteration of any programme
transmitted on such channels.
15
Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana and Ors. AIR1988SC1642
16
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and Ors. [1989] 2 SCR 204
24 | P a g e
¶6. Now, as per the Sections mentioned above from the said Acts, the intent of these
acts is derived from their preamble;
The preamble to the Sports Act, 2007 makes it clear that it has been enacted as :
"An Act to provide access to the largest number of listeners and
viewers, on a free to air basis, of sporting events of national
importance through mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals
with Prasar Bharati and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto."
¶7. The Sports Act was therefore introduced to provide access to the largest number of
listeners and viewers through its own terrestrial network and not through any other
means the request for transmission of the matches only on DB Channel's network does
not deprive the public from the availability of the matches either since the network of
DB is claimed to be the largest in the Nation w.r.t viewership reach.
" DD National channel is the largest terrestrial network in the world covering
about 92% population and 81% land area of the country." 17
¶8. Referring to the Court's decision in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others v.
Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt. Limited 18 wherein the it recognized the well-settled
principle that (¶ 12) :-
"... a thing which cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly over-
reaching the statutory restriction."
¶9. There is no doubt that there was public interest in the sharing of the live
broadcasting signal with regard to cricket matches of national importance over the
17
www.ddindia.gov.in/DDNational/Pages/Default.aspx
18
2012 (10) SCC 283
25 | P a g e
terrestrial and DTH networks of DB, but this cannot be extended to cover cable
operators19.
¶10. Normally, cable operators would have had to take a licence from the Respondents ,
but because DB1 and DB (News Channel) are compulsorily required to be shown on
cable by virtue of § 8 of the CTN Act20, if the live feed is broadcast on these channels,
the cable operators would not and do not need to take a licence from the respsondents as
their viewers would be able to see the cricket matches, in any event. 21
¶11. Therefore, by placing the live broadcasting signal in the two DB channels, which
have to be compulsorily carried by the cable operators under § 8 of the CTN Act, the
Appellants are hit on two counts.
a. They lose their subscription money and,
b. They lose out on the advertisement revenue.
¶12. The end result of this scheme is that it benefits the cable operators at the cost of the
Respondents and the meagre revenue from advertisement share advanced by DB
Channel doesn't suffice the loss from the potential subscription fee from the cable
operators.
¶13. It is contended that when there is an expropriation for a specific purpose "x", the
same must be used for the specified purpose only.
¶14. Meaning thereby that when the expropriation by virtue of § 3 of the Sports Act is
for re- transmission of the live broadcasting signals on DB's terrestrial networks and
DBs DTH networks, then it must be used for that purpose only and cannot be used for
extending the expropriation to cover re- transmission through cable operators.
19
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [1986] 159 ITR 856 (SC)
20
Notification dated 13.09.2000 issued by Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation
21
State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (10) SCC 283
26 | P a g e
¶15. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation and Others v. Zakir Hussain22 held as under:-
" ¶33. ... it is settled law that where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the
performance in a specified manner, the performance cannot be enforced in any other
manner."
¶6. Hence, the counsel seeks a direction to be issued to the Appellants to encrypt DB
Channel's Satellite Transportation Feed of live broadcasting signals of cricket matches
organized by BRCI to the DB Kendras and transmission towers throughout India for
subsequent broadcasts on DB's terrestrial networks. It is further sought for declaring
that no person other than DB has the right to transmit, relay or offer for exhibition, the
live broadcasting signals of sports events shown by DB under the Sports Act.
And that no cable television network, Direct-to- Home (DTH) Network, multi-system
network or local cable operator could broadcast such sports events without a licence
from the content owners, that is by subscribing to the content producers.
V . WHETHER THE BRCI ABUSED ITS DOMINANT POSITION AND ENGAGED IN ANTI-
COMPETITIVE PRACTICES TOWARDS S TV?
E.1 WHETHER THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO BRCI OR NOT? AND WHETHER BRCI IS
AN 'ENTERPRISE' AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(H) OF THE ACT.
¶1. The sub issue that arises here is whether the BRCI is considered to be an
enterprise? The scope and meaning of Section 19(1)(a) of The Competition
22
2005 (7) SCC 447
27 | P a g e
Act, 2002 ("Act") comes into question Complaint with the CCI alleging
irregularities with the BCCI's grant of franchise rights, media rights and sponsorship
rights in the context of the ILC.
¶2. The BRCI's role as GCC governing body for cricket in India was "custodian" for
the game and "organizer" of matches. Although the BRCI was a "not for profit"
society, its activities were revenue generating (e.g., it sold media rights as well as
tickets). Insofar as their entrepreneurial (i.e., revenue generating) conduct is
concerned, all sports associations are to be regarded as "enterprises" for the purposes
of the Act and treated "at par with other business establishments.” The Counsel now
concludes that BRCI is an enterprise for the purpose of the Act and therefore within
the jurisdiction of the Respondent.
¶3. Expression 'enterprise' may refer to any entity, regardless of its legal status or the
way in which it was financed and, therefore, it may include natural as well as legal
persons. This statement gets further strengthened as agreement entered into by a
'person' or 'association of persons' are also included and when it is read with
definition of 'person' mentioned in Section 2(l) of Act. Economic activity, as is
generally understood, refers to any activity consisting of offering products in a
market regardless of whether the activities are intended to earn a profit. Any entity,
regardless of its form, constitutes an 'enterprise' within the meaning of Section 3 of
Act when it engages in economic activity. An economic activity includes any
activity, whether or not profit making, that involves economic trade. 23
23
Competition Commission of India vs. Co-ordination Committee of Artists and Technicians of W.B. Film and
Television and Ors. AIR 2017 SC 1449
28 | P a g e
E.2 WHAT WOULD BE THE RELEVANT MARKET IN THE SAID CASE?
¶1. For determining whether a market constitutes a "relevant market" for the purposes
of this Act, the Counsel shall have due regard to the "relevant geographic market'' and
"relevant product market".
¶2. The Counsel shall, while determining the "relevant geographic market", have due
regard to all or any of the following factors, namely:
(a) regulatory trade barriers;
(b) local specification requirements;
(c) national procurement policies;
(d) adequate distribution facilities;
(e) transport costs;
(f) language;
(g) consumer preferences;
(h) need for secure or regular supplies or rapid after-sales services.
¶3. The Counsel shall, while determining the "relevant product market", have due
regard to all or any of the following factors, namely: -
(a) physical characteristics or end-use of goods;
(b) price of goods or service;
(c) consumer preferences;
(d) exclusion of in-house production;
(e) existence of specialised producers;
29 | P a g e
(f) classification of industrial products.24
¶4. The word 'market' used in Section 19(3) of Act, has reference to 'relevant market'.
As per Section 19(5) of Act, such relevant market can be relevant geographic market
or relevant product market.25
Factors which are to be kept in mind while determining relevant geographic market
are stipulated in Section 19(6) of Act,
and factors which need to be considered while determining relevant product market
are prescribed in Section 19(7) of Act.
¶5. Market definition is a tool to identify and define boundaries of competition
between firms. Purpose of defining 'relevant market' is to assess with identifying in a
systematic way the competitive constraints that undertakings face when operating in a
market. Concept of relevant market implies that, there could be an effective
competition between products which form part of it and this pre-supposes that, there
is a sufficient degree of inter-changeability between all products forming part of same
market insofar as specific use of such product is concerned.
¶6. While identifying relevant market in a given case, Competition Commission of
India (CCI) is required to look at evidence that is available and relevant to case at
hand. CCI has to define boundaries of relevant market as precisely as required by
circumstances of case. Relevant product and geographic market for a particular
product may vary depending on nature of buyers and suppliers concerned by conduct
under examination and their position in supply chain.
¶7. The Act considers relevant market as the market of various goods or services that
are regarded as interchangeable by consumer with reference to product characteristics,
24
Competition Act, 2002
25
Competition Commission of India vs. Fast Way Transmission Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2018 (2) SCALE 341
30 | P a g e
intended use and price. The objective of this definition is for precise understanding of
the competitive constraints the market forces are subjected to. Moreover, the Act
emphasises that definition of relevant market needs to be viewed from the demand
perspective and based on characteristics of the product, price and intended use. Thus,
the Counsel considers the definition in accordance with the parameters laid down
under the Act. The Counsel differentiates
1. sports from other forms of television (including movies and general
entertainment programs),
2. cricket from other forms of sport, and
3. first class/international cricket (e.g., Test Matches or One Day Internationals)
from cricket played in "private professional leagues" (such as the ILC). The
differentiations were based on qualitative and subjective demand considerations (e.g.,
"every sports event is unique in itself") as well as some viewer data. Considering the
basic test of non-transitory relative price rise of 5 per cent to 10 per cent also known
as SNNIP test for a cricket event and considering the consumer behaviour, it seems
quite unreasonable to believe that a consumer would substitute cricket event with any
other form of entertainment viz. Films, TV shows etc. or any other sporting event.
There is enough behavioural evidence to suggest the same is reflected in data
regarding viewership above. After concluding that cricket is not substitutable with
other sports or other entertainment events, the Respondent considered it necessary to
examine whether there are inherent differences between the two broad categories of
events also viz. First Class/International events and Private Professional League
Cricket events as noted in review of sports sector above which merit examination for
determination of relevant market. This distinction arose from the fact that entry of
31 | P a g e
private professional leagues saw the merger of media and entertainment to raise the
level of cricket to a different height altogether, contributing to the commercialization
of the game. A new genre of cricket emerged with a market distinct from existing
cricket events.
¶8. The Respondent, therefore, opines that the relevant market is the Organization of
Private Professional Cricket Leagues/Events in India.26
E.3 WHETHER BRCI HAS A DOMINANT POSITION IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AS
DETERMINED?
¶1. The main objective of competition law is to promote economic efficiency using
competition as one of the means of assisting the creation of market responsive to
consumer preferences.
The advantages of perfect competition are three- fold:

-
Allocative efficiency, which ensures the effective allocation of resources,
productive efficiency
-
Which ensures that costs of production are kept at a minimum.
-
Dynamic efficiency, which promotes innovative practices.
¶2. These factors by and large have been accepted all over the world as the guiding
principles for effective implementation of competition law.27
BRCI has no "statutory status" but their actions in terms of laying down the rules of
the game and team selection fall within the ambit of a regulatory role. This status
26
Surinder Singh Barmi, v. Board of Control for Cricket in India 2013 CompLR 297 (CCI)
27
Competition Commission of India v. SAIL (2010) 10 SCC 744
32 | P a g e
arises on account of the institutional form of BRCI and its inter-linkages with GCC.
The approach of Government of India on this matter also needs to be considered.
¶3. Moreover, the background and historical evolution of BRCI will enable to discern
the issue. Despite the fact that BRCI is not recognized by Government of India (GOI)
as the regulator of cricket in India, the examination of object clause of Memorandum
of Association of BRCI reveals that in substance, BRCI considers it as the regulator of
cricket in India. BRCI is a full member of GCC and as such BRCI follows the
Rules/Bye Laws made by GCC.
¶4. Specifically, attention is drawn to Section 32 of GCC Regulations which
prescribes the definition of "disapproved cricket" i.e., the Authority of the Members
of GCC to "approve" cricket leagues and the course of action to deal with
"disapproved cricket". It is very clear from the reading of the clause that the Members
of GCC are authorised to permit/deny the entry of competing leagues.
¶5. Thus, by virtue of Section 32 of GCC Rules, the "right of approval" is vested with
BRCI. This "right of approval" is clearly a regulatory role.
GCC also vests the rights of deciding on any factor related to cricket with its
Members and declares the Members as "custodian" of sport. GCC very clearly
declares that the Members of GCC are the custodian of sport of cricket. The word
"custodian" clearly highlights the intent of GCC and its Members to regulate/control
the sport of cricket in their respective jurisdictions. Another evidence of BRCI as
being a de facto regulator and the team participating in International events being
Indian team and not a representative of BRCI is found in the GCC Guidelines
specifying full member criteria. It expressly states the performance of "national team"
as one of the parameters.
33 | P a g e
a) The substance the "first mover" advantage and the implicit recognition by GOI
as the national association for cricket, have contributed to the present status of
BRCI.
b) The Object Clauses of BRCI's Memorandum of Association contradicts the
BRCI's stand that it is not a regulator and the team is representing the Board
and not India.
c) The linkages with GCC and the Mandate/Rules/Bye Laws of GCC make it
very clear that BRCI is the regulator/custodian of sport of cricket in India. The
GCC Bye Laws also makes it very clear that the team is Indian National team
and that BRCI is the National Sports Federation.
d) The submission of GOI to the Supreme Court and the recent attempts made by
GOI to bring BRCI within the ambit of Right to Information makes the
Government intent clear even if there is absence of any documentary evidence
to suggest that BRCI is explicitly declared as a National Association for the
sport of cricket in India.
¶6. Thus, the Respondent from the above evidence concludes that BRCI is a de facto
regulator of sport of cricket in India.
E.4 WHETHER BRCI HAS ABUSED ITS DOMINANT POSITION IN THE RELEVANT
MARKET IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 OF THE ACT?
¶1. The Explanation to § 4 of the Competition Act specifically refers to a position of
strength that is enjoyed by an enterprise or group thereof in the relevant market
34 | P a g e
which in this case is the28 organization of Private Professional Cricket
Leagues/Events in India.
¶2. The representation and warranty given by BRCI in the ILC Media Rights
Agreement that “it shall not organize, sanction, recognize, or support during the
Rights period another professional domestic ILC competition that is competitive to
the league”, is in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. The Rules 28(b) and
28(d) of BCCI Rules and Regulations are in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the
Act as they leave no scope or window for conduct of any kind of professional
domestic cricket other than by BRCI or its members.
¶3. There is nothing on record to consider these restrictive conditions as inherent to
the objectives of the cricket and that the effect of such restrictive condition is
proportionate to the legitimate sporting interest of cricket administration. It is
necessary to appreciate whether the impugned clause in the ILC Media Rights
Agreement and the impugned rules of the BRCI rules are in place to serve the
development of the sport or preserve its integrity or otherwise. If the impugned
restrictions impede competition without having any reasonable justification for
protection of the legitimate interest of the sport, the same would fall foul of
competition law.
¶4. Factors such as ensuring primacy of national representative competition, deter
free riding on the investments by national associations, maintaining the calendar of
activities in a cohesive manner not cutting across the interests of participating
members, preserving the integrity of the sport, etc. are inherent to the orderly
development of the sport, which is the prime objective of the sports associations.
Moving further, on the proportionality aspect, the Respondent opines that
28
2018 (2) SCALE 341
35 | P a g e
proportionality of the regulations can only be decided by considering the manner in
which regulations are applied.
¶5. The Respondent is of the considered view that the system of approval under
pyramid structure of sports governance is a normal phenomenon of sports
administration. However, sporting rules often create a restrictive environment for the
economic activities that are incidental to the sport. In case of BRCI, Rule 28 of
BRCI Rules stipulates that the permission for conducting cricket match or
tournament will be accorded only to its members and their affiliates. Any cricket
tournament or match conducted without the approval of BRCI will be deemed to be
Disapproved Cricket in terms of Section 32 of the GCC Bye-laws. Further, Rule 29
of the BRCI Rules provide that:
(a) no member, associate member or affiliate member of BRCI shall
participate or extend help of any kind to an unapproved cricket tournament;
(b) no player registered with BRCI or its member, affiliate member or
associate member could participate in an unapproved tournament; and
(c) no umpire or scorer on the BRCI Panel shall associate with an
unapproved tournament. In the absence of these resources, no private entity
can organize any meaningful cricket match or tournament without the
support of BRCI.
¶6. Seen in the backdrop of such restrictive Rules, the Respondent finds that the
representation and warranty given by BRCI that it shall not organize, sanction,
recognize, or support any other league that is competitive to the professional
domestic ILC, during the rights period i.e. for a sustained period of ten years,
forecloses the market for organization of professional domestic cricket
leagues/events in India.
36 | P a g e
¶7. In today’s dynamic world where sports and formats of sports are fast evolving,
the impugned restriction for ten years is found to be enduring and has the potential
to impede competition as well as the development/ evolution of the game. Why the
monopoly of ILC, created through the self-imposed restriction, has to run for a
sustained period of ten years and how does it serve the legitimate interest of cricket.
The impugned restriction been given as a commitment in a commercial agreement
and has not shown to have been pursued in the interest of sport is held to be unfair
and anti-competitive. In the absence of any plausible explanation, it is found that the
impugned clause was pursued to enhance the commercial interest of the bidders of
broadcasting rights and the consideration in turn received by BRCI. As discussed
earlier, the impugned clause is restrictive of the competitive constraints that would
have prevailed otherwise.
¶8. Being the de facto regulator of cricket in India, it is understandable that
imposition of restrictive conditions, in certain circumstances, might be indispensable
to preserve the interest of the sport in the country. However, it is not acceptable as
the restriction helps BRCI to ensure monopoly for itself in the relevant market for
organization of domestic professional cricket leagues. In fact, the clause clearly
reflects the intent of BRCI to foreclose competition. Further, restriction that has no
nexus or is disproportional to the objective/ interest of cricket cannot seek protection
under Section 32 of the GCC Byelaws. On a purposive reading of the GCC Bye-
laws, it cannot be said that the same allows protection of commercial interest over
and above the interest of cricket. Though free entry is one of the necessary
conditions for competition to flourish, it is well accepted that in view of the
specificities of certain sectors, entry may be subject to regulatory conditions. The
effects of such entry rules stipulated by the regulator need a case-by-case evaluation
37 | P a g e
taking into account the legitimate regulatory goals such as quality, safety, orderly
growth of the sector etc. In this case, the impugned clause in the ILC Media Rights
Agreement and Rule 28(b) create an insurmountable entry barrier in the relevant
market for organization of domestic professional cricket leagues. It the absence of
any plausible regulatory rationale or necessity of the same for promotion of the
sport, the anti-competitive effect of the impugned clause is indubitable.
¶9. Based on the foregoing assessment, the Respondent concludes that the
representation and warranty given by BRCI in the ILC Media Rights Agreement that
“it shall not organize, sanction, recognize, or support during the Rights period
another professional domestic Indian T20 competition that is competitive to the
league” and Rule 28(b) of the BRCI Rules, amounts to denial of market access for
organization of professional domestic cricket leagues/ events in India, in
contravention of Section 4(2)(c) read with Section 4(1) of the Act.
VI. WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE BROADCASTING CONTRACT BY BRCI WITH
STATS TV JUSTIFIED?
¶1. It is contended that the respondents in this case, illegally terminated the contract for
the global broadcasting rights of the ILC, comprising the television, mobile and internet
rights to all ILC matches.
¶2. The Respondents had won the rights when BRCI had floated a tender, seeking bids
for the same, in April, 2011 and the rights were awarded for a period of 3 years (2011-
2014).
¶3. After a period of two years, in the final year of the contract, i.e., in 2013, BRCI sent a
notice to the Respondents stating the termination of the discussed contract for ineligible
38 | P a g e
reasons which according the Appellants were that the Respondents indulged in the
"..violation of the integrity of the telecast by prematurely cutting to breaks and inserting
commercials during a live match, replays and other on-field action"
¶4. This Counsel, before proceeding, seeks to establish the nature of ILC.
It is viewed to be similar to an entertaining event but garners a lot more viewership than
any other sporting event or an entertainment event in the country and is also a very
commercially viable event.
¶5. BRCI themselves, enjoy the fruit of the commercial portion of the game from the
Title and Team Sponsors, Brand Value Spikes, Broadcasting Rights and other official
partners.
This clearly show the revenue generated from the event.
The nature being established, the broadcasters had to indulge in a very competitive bid to
win the broadcasting rights, hence would also focus on the potential income from
advertisements. Since the respondents own the media rights for the country's most sought
after media property they are bound to duties to their advertising clients since the matches
itself make the prime time. This results in huge viewership with very high potential for
revenue generation.
"They have further stated that the production and rights cost for live sporting events
is very high and hence the present format of advertisement breaks should be allowed
and if advertisements breaks are restricted then it may not be commercially viable to
have live telecast of sporting events."29
¶6. The commercial interruptions are possible only according to the flow of the sporting
action, which determines the rhythm of commercial breaks.
29
¶22 Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India Notification, 14th May, 2012
39 | P a g e
Citing the examples of the sport of Hockey, Football where the on-field action is
continuous, from kick off till half time and hence no question of broadcasters cutting the
live event for telecasting of commercials. But the game of Cricket includes the idea of
'Overs' which spans a consecutive six legitimate balls being bowled and once the 'over' is
done with, there is a brief break of a few minutes where the broadcasters can advertise.
¶7. Other very brief breaks such as when there is a wicket, boundary and other small
interruptions, which are again natural breaks in the game where there is a normal routine
of arrival and departure of players. These, hence do not amount to any violation of the
integrity neither does it interfere with the interests of the viewers.
During this brief period, the only action ongoing on the field is the routine change of
sides and replays of the same, which doesn't form the relevant part of the sport but just as
a general practise in the game of cricket.
It is to be viewed that this cannot amount to any violation of integrity of the telecast but a
mere duty to play the commercials of their advertising clients.
40 | P a g e
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, evidence adduced, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsels for the Respondents humbly pray and implore before this
Hon’ble Court for the following among other reliefs:
1. The acknowledgement of the writ does not lie within the jurisdiction under
this hon’ble court.
2. Hold that the registration is correct and valid.
3. Remove the AAG from his post in BRCI.
4. Revisit the order given by the Bombay High Court
5. Uphold the order given by the Bombay High Court
6. Uphold the order given by the Bombay High court.
The Court may make any other such order as it may deem fit in terms of justice, equity and
good conscience.
And for this act of kindness the Respondents shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
Respectfully Submitted
Place: India S/d______________________________
Date: March 2018 Counsel(s) for the Respondents
41 | P a g e

PUM17 - Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUM17 - Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEMORANDUM FOR THE Respondents TEAMCODE : PUM17

2ND PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON SPORTS LAW

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTERS BETWEEN :

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . . . . . .PETITIONERS/APPELLANT

BOARD FOR REGULATION OF CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANR . . . RESPONDENTS

BOARD FOR REGULATION OF CRICKET IN INDIA . . . . . APPELLANT

S TV AND ANR. . . .RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

AND THE CIVIL APPEAL) , S TV AND STATS TV

Sl. No.___________________________________________________________Page No.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3-4

e) Regulation and Byelaws Referred--------------------------------------------- 6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9-11

6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 13-14

8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 40

BRCI Board for the Regulation of Cricket in India

GCC Global Council for Cricket

SCC Supreme Court Cases

DCPL Domestic Cable Private Ltd

SLP Special Leave Petition

CPR Code of Civil Procedure Rules

UoI Union Of India

ILLJ Indian Labor Law Journal

ILC Indian League for Cricket

DTH Direct to Home

CTN Cable Television Networks

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

ICC International Cricket Council

CCI Competition Commission of India

TRP Target Rating Point

COMPAT Competition Appellate Tribunal

Tekraj Vasandi V Union

Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Vishnu

11 S Rangarajan Vs P.Jagjivan Ram And Ors AIR 1989 SCR 204 23

Indian Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd And Ors Vs

State Of Rajasthan And Ors Vs Aanjaney Organic

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and

Competition Commission Of India Vs Co-

Competition Commission Of India Vs Fast Way 2018 (2) SCALE

Surinder Singh Barmi Vs Board Of Control For 2013 CompLR 297

Competition Commission Of India Vs Steel

1. Competition Law In India : Policy, Issues and Developments - T. Ramappa

2. Law and Sports In India - Developments, Issues And Challenges - Mukul

1. The Lodha Comittee Report

1. The Indian Constitution, 1950

2. The Indian Competition Act, 2002

3. The Societies Registration Act, 1860

4. Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act,

5. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995

E. REGULATIONS AND BYE-LAWS REFERRED

2. ICC Bye Laws

3. BCCI Rules and Regulations

under Art. 139A of Constitution of India.

Court under A. 136 of the Constitution of India

All of which is respectfully submitted

largest public broadcasting agency. It is an autonomous body set up by an Act of Parliament

[B] RELEVANT FACTS:

rights by the BRCI.

[C] EVENTS THAT UNFOLDED THE PRESENT ISSUES:

was challenged in the Supreme Court by BRCI.