SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 16 ISSN 2456-9704

_____________________________________________________________________________________
SPORTS BROADCASTING LAW: spread of information and education and it
EVOLUTION AND THE ROAD AHEAD wasn’t interested in commercial interests.
However, with all the revenue there, the
By Naman Khanna Indian Government decided to accept sports
From Symbiosis Law School, Pune tournaments and programs that were backed
by sponsors.2 Slowly but surely,
ABSTRACT. Doordarshan was becoming a monopoly in
India is one of the few countries in the world the broadcasting department and was fully
where a particular sport encompasses state owned. This came to fruition when
everyone, even those divided by culture. In India hosted in New Delhi, the ninth edition
the modern era, it has transformed into a of the Asian Games which was for the first
media spectacle, targeting million-sized time in the country, an event broadcasted in
viewers and trillion-dollar marketing full colour.3
contracts. But, throughout the cycle, sports
have become commercialized and Thus, before the introduction of economic
commodified. The potency of the mix of and liberalization reforms by the Indian
media and sports has led to controversy, Government, the sports broadcasting
precipitating judicial interference. The industry was budding and one that was still
audiovisual sports equally troubled the developing. In fact, until the year of 1984,
minds of the legislators and the academics. simply watching and owning a television set
This article traces the evolution of sports required a license which had to be renewed
broadcasting law through the help of major on a timely basis.4 This fee was used to
cases. It also reviews the areas of sports news operate and fund the state owned
and data and whether it comes under the Doordarshan corporation. This model of
purview of Sports Broadcasting while licensing changed completely in the 1980s
ending with a brief look at the road ahead. with the commercialization of cricket.
Initially, with cricket being almost equal to
EVOLUTION AND TRANSFORMATION any religion in India, the government
OF SPORTS BROADCASTING IN INDIA. enjoyed a large monopoly towards its
Sports broadcasting can be traced all the way broadcasting. However, it wasn’t until 1983
back to the time when India first began to when the Indian cricket team shocked the
flourish in the audiovisual and television cricketing world and won the world cup till
market. India’s first public service sports broadcasting and commercialization really
broadcaster was Doordarshan which was started booming. The 1983 world cup was
established in the year 1976.1 Initially the solely broadcasted by Doordarshan.
vision of the television market was the Therefore, the 1983 world cup not only lead

1
Sevanti Ninan, ‘History of Indian Broadcasting 3
Sumanta Dutta, ‘Pricing of TV time’, available
Reform’, Cardozo Journal of International & at http://www.etstrategicmarketing.com/sp/art7.htm
Comparative Law, Vol. 5, Fall, 1997, pp. 341-364. 4
K. Unhikrishnan, ‘Doordarshan: India’s National
2
Ambivalence in a STAR-ry Eyed Land: Doordarshan Broadcaster’ (2010) 18 Online Journal of Space
and the Satellite TV Challenge, available Communication
at http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/pages/sagar/spring299 https://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue18/
4/1.1TEST_fn.html#fnI63 kunhikrishnan.html
_____________________________________________________________________________________
www.supremoamicus.org
 SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 16 ISSN 2456-9704

_____________________________________________________________________________________
to the explosion of cricket watchers but also of investment form outside India that
the expansion of the audiovisual media. ultimately lead to the Hero Case.
Doordarshan was continuously gaining and
benefitting from these tournaments and the THE HERO CUP CASE.
revenue was helping its monopoly get even In the field of Sports Broadcasting Law, the
stronger. However, things were about to take Hero Cup case7 or the Cricket Association
a turn with the introduction of day and night case is the most historic and landmark case.
cricket as well as cricketers wearing Pluralist telecast equality has been a
coloured jerseys which would make the developing plant throughout the
world not only see them as cricketers but also constitutions of the world. Only in the last
as superstars. This model was begun by a two decades have the developed countries
media tycoon form Australia named Kerry seen the dawning of this freedom; as its
Packer. Being credited with this model constitutions were in place for centuries. To
wasn’t enough for Packer and he wanted the name just a few, the United Kingdom and the
exclusive rights to broadcast these events but United States, including Austria, France,
conclusively failed in this regard. He was Germany, Italy, the main European
frustrated and therefore started his own Constitution have either adopted the radio
tournament, one which would match the broadcasting law of judicial decisions
allure of the world cup called as the World against the monopoly and the diversification
Series Cricket (WSC) where the best players of Doordarshan chain services of a single
were offered extraordinary amounts of authority or individual. India did not witness
money to play. 5 This was a real challenge to such a long gestation cycle because of the
and angered all the cricket boards around the long delays in television shows, news and
world. Although, the establishment started developments in foreign soil.
by Packer was shutdown, it not only changed
cricket forever but also its broadcasting and When it comes to the facts, the present case
had a trickledown effect in India. has travelled to the Supreme Court of India
from the Calcutta High Court Single Judge
Doordarshan unaffected dictated terms and Bench, Division Bench. It saw a number of
conditions to sports organizers without letters exchanged between the respondents
paying them and in reportedly cases charged and the appellants. The brief facts were that
the BCCI fees in order to broadcast events6 the petitioners, the Bengal Cricket
which was completely illogical. With their Association (CAB) and the Cricket Control
being no real competitor out there BCCI had India (BCCI) Board, non-profit sports
no alternative but to agree with the terms of organizations dedicated to promoting cricket
the BCCI, but things were about to take a and its ideals, decided to organize the 1993
turn with the introduction of economic Hero Cup tournament matches. TWI, an
reforms by the government and a huge influx international corporation, had entered into an

5
The Cricket Portal available at economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/how-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Cricket a-cash-strapped-bcci-in-the-early-90s-became-the-
6
Boria Majumdar, ‘How a cash-strapped BCCI in the worlds-wealthiest-board/
early 90s became the world’s wealthiest board’, (The 7
Ministry of Information o & Broadcasting, Govt. of
Economic Times, 4 September 2017) https://blogs. India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161
_____________________________________________________________________________________
www.supremoamicus.org
 SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 16 ISSN 2456-9704

_____________________________________________________________________________________
agreement to telecast the matches. They also advertisements. This way the deadlock was
wanted INTELSAT to uplink facility eliminated, created for the millions of
through the government agency VSNL for viewers inside and outside the world.
this. The Ministries of Home, Defense, The case of the Hero Cup is therefore a case
Human Resource Development and relating to Article 19(1)(a) and the applicable
Telecommunication granted them limitations set out in Article 19(2). The
permission for telecasting. This angered the decision also included consideration of the
Doordarshan and the Ministry of difference in the impact of 19(1)(a) and
Information and Broadcasting, which 19(1)(g)9 as well as 19(2) and 19(6).
protested against such a decision and However, some inference can be drawn
eventually denied the permission, and this which will allow us to continue this
was the bone of contention, attracting Article discussion. Next, the court rejected in this
19(1)(a). case the point that' airwaves / frequencies are
The issues in the case were twofold-: a public property' and must be used in the
 Whether the organisation of a cricket match best interest of the public.
was a form of speech and expression
protected by Article 19(1)(a); In addition, the court observed that
 If the right to broadcast that event was also Doordarshan has the monopoly of the
included in the right to free speech and national telecasting network, thus failing to
speech. show the tournament would harm the
Once both questions were answered in the interests of the majority of people who
affirmative then whether the rejection was cannot afford to subscribe to pay channel.
protected by Article 19(2) remained the Thus, in this court remark, the need for a free
matter. Unanimously, the Supreme Court service broadcaster other than Doordarshan
held that the right to entertain was part of is implied. Doordarshan is the sole free
freedom of speech and expression and, in service network, in the absence of
addition, it also included the right to alternatives. Therefore, rules are needed to
broadcast the case. Instead, referring to the ensure Doordarshan is unable to abuse its
justification of the refusal to grant monopolistic status arbitrarily. The
permission, Justice Sawant took the view statement from the MIBs explained the
that Article 19(2) envisaged another concern. In explanation of Doordarshan's
exception "in the interests of the national negative stance, it was affirmed that, since
interest and society which is not another term sport is one of the main sources of revenue,'
for the general public's interest." Justice there is nothing illegitimate or unreasonable
Sawant settled the controversy by not in Doordarshan that seeks to earn some
upsetting the Calcutta High Court order money in the matter of telecasting such
which allowed the events to be telecast.8 As events.'
regards the revenues, the court ordered the The Hero Cup case for the first time
High Court to divide between CAB and DD emphasized the need for an independent
the revenues generated by the TV public authority to regulate the broad

8 9
Ibid Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g): Every citizen
has a right to practice any profession, or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business
_____________________________________________________________________________________
www.supremoamicus.org
 SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 16 ISSN 2456-9704

_____________________________________________________________________________________
spectrum of broadcasting issues. public interest and thus ultimately led to the
Furthermore, it was also explained that filing of legal proceedings in the High Court
19(1)(a) does not include' the right to of Madras. The High Court’s judgment was
establish, retain or operate broadcasting, three-fold. Firstly, Ten sports was required to
stations or broadcasting facilities' within its share its transmission to the Doordarshan
scope. This is important from the perspective network; secondly, the Ten sports logo as
of the present discussion in the sense that well as the advertisements would be retained
conflicts relating to sports broadcasting are in the Doordarshan network’s retransmitted
not an issue to be resolved by recourse to feed; thirdly, both the parties would agree for
constitutional provisions alone. a fixed remuneration that Doordarshan
would pay to Ten sports.
Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group
& Anr. v. Prasar Bharati & Ors. 10 AN ANALYSIS.
The decision in the case of Cricket All sports broadcasters who acquire the
Association of Bengal by the Supreme Court rights were required to share their feed with
was considered to be a bit redundant with Prasar Bharati when it came to ‘national and
Doordarshan becoming more and more non- international sporting events of national
competitive which ultimately resulted in importance’ in India according to the ‘Policy
private players having majority of the Guidelines for Downlinking of Television
concentration of sports broadcasting rights. Channels 2005’ issued by the Ministry of
This was felt when two of the biggest cricket Information and Broadcasting after the
tournaments, the Cricket World Cup, 1999 above decision. This was in the news when
and the one in 2003 were broadcasted by Star during the broadcast of the series between
Sports and Set Max respectively. West Indies and India in 2007 when the
Doordarshan was only able to ensure that the official broadcaster Nimbus refused to abide
matches concerning team India where be by and follow the above guideline requiring
able to be telecasted by it, but this was more the feed to be shared by Prasar Bharati. This
of a temporary arrangement rather than one ultimately led to the promulgation of the
by law and compulsion. In 2004, India were Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory
headlining probably the most lucrative tour Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Ordinance,
in their small cricketing history with them 2007 by the Government of India but was
touring Pakistan. The broadcast rights to repealed when the parliament in 2008 passed
both the test matches as well as the one-day the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory
internationals were bought by Ten Sports. Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Bill. This act
Both Ten Sports and the Doordarshan was enacted and passed with the intention of
Network were unable to agree on terms providing access free of cost to a huge
regarding what matches would be telecasted number of viewers when it came to events
by the latter. This was because Ten concerning of national importance. Thus, it
dismissed Doordarshan’s contention to arbitrarily provided that all sports
retransmit the feed which led to this decision broadcasters who had acquired the content
being regarded as one which was against rights legally would not be able to telecast

10
W.P.M.P. Nos. 6375 and 6376 of 2004
_____________________________________________________________________________________
www.supremoamicus.org
 SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 16 ISSN 2456-9704

_____________________________________________________________________________________
unless and until the feed was shared and The ICC wanted to ban NDTV from
simultaneously telecasted on the Prasar broadcasting any part of the 2012 world cup
Bharati feed as well. All the Sports that was held in Sri Lanka. The High Court
broadcasters would get some sought of relief while deciding the case held that a news
in the form of revenue from advertisements channel could not show numerous minutes of
in the 50:50 ratio and 75:25 in radio and footage of the sports programme where it
television broadcasting and coverage ultimately led to a commercial profit but
respectively. could only show important events such as a
hundred or a five wicket haul which would
CAN NEWS CHANNELS BROADCAST be considered as fair use and therefore ruled
SPORTS EVENTS IN THEIR in favour of the ICC. NDTV appealed in the
PROGRAMMES? Supreme Court contending that it did not
violate any proprietary rights but
New Delhi Television Ltd. v. ICC broadcasted under the concept of fair dealing
Development (International) Ltd. & Anr. 11 mentioned in the Indian Copyright Act,
The Cricket World Cup, 2011 was probably 1957. According to NDTV, the telecasting of
the biggest event that India has ever hosted. current events would fall under the category
The ICC, before the start of the world cup of fair dealing. The court while deciding
issued the ‘ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 ruled that if a news channel created special
News Access Guidelines for India’ programmes for covering a sports event, it
according to which bona fide news channels would be considered as news analysis and
in India could broadcast live as well as past not news reporting. The Supreme Court also
footage of the world cup in limits for the sole held that if the news channel created special
purpose of reporting along with strict terms programmes, it could show the footage but
and conditions regarding the issue of then not commercialize it by showing
commercialization concerning match advertisements or advertise it but not show
footage. These guidelines and rules were any of the footage of the sporting event.
severely overlooked by all the news channels
and were violated multiple times. The AN ANALYSIS.
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting The situation preceding to the case was one
had to intervene the ICC from banning the in which there was exploitation in a rampant
media coverage of the knockout matches. manner by the news channels under the
However, the ICC did not completely ignore category of fair dealing while covering
the violations and just before the start of the sports events. All the sports broadcasters
twenty-twenty world cup in 2012, initiated who spent crores on acquisition of rights of
legal proceedings against the news channel broadcasting from the BCCI lost out on their
NDTV. The ICC’s contention was that privileges which they felt were exclusive to
NDTV had during the 2011 world cup these news channels. When it came to the
violated multiple provision of the guidelines case of electronic media, there was a sense of
issued by the ICC and thus infringed upon ambiguity regarding what constituted fair
multiple rights of its sponsors and partners. dealing in the context and situation of news

11
CS (OS) No. 2416/2012
_____________________________________________________________________________________
www.supremoamicus.org
 SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 16 ISSN 2456-9704

_____________________________________________________________________________________
reporting of footage of a match of a sporting corporations had violated multiple rights due
event. The courts only had accepted the to the agreement that Star had with BCCI
concept of fair dealing but were yet to legally whereby it had acquired mobile rights form
form a definite test regarding what the BCCI. The Court decided against Star
constituted under it. Therefore, the accepted ruling that as the information was already in
practice, instead of a definite test of what was the public domain, its use was allowed with
and wasn’t fair dealing, was that there would a lag of two minutes. This decisions was set
be contracts and agreements between the aside because of a large number of flaws in
official broadcasters of the sporting events the procedural part. In 2013, the Delhi High
and the body that represented the Court granted an interim injunction
broadcasting aspect of news in India News according to which the corporations could
Broadcasters Association in India. The display the information including live scores
contracts included specific guidelines as to and commentary with a fifteen-minute lag
the limits and extent of the match footage but anything under that, they would need to
that could be broadcasted as well as the require to obtain a licence from Star. This
revenue structure. Although, these injunction was then subsequently set aside
agreements covered the parts of the sports by the Delhi High Court. The Court ruled
broadcasters and the news organizations, the that the agreement between BCCI and Star
interests of the investors of the sponsors regarding quasi property rights was in
were considerably ignored. This judgment contravention of the copyright law. This
took into purview all the important aspects of decision was appealed by Star in the
copyright, broadcasting and Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s
commercialization by tangibly defining and judgment was not very clear but simply order
fixing the exact limits and structure for the three corporations to follow certain
reporting of a sporting event for the first conditions while disseminating the
time. information including a small deposit for
which Star had exclusive rights.
DO ORGANIZATIONS WHO PROVIDE
LIVE STATISTICS AND COMMENTARY AN ANALYSIS.
VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF SPORTS The real issue regarding the use of sports
BROADCASTERS? data is still pretty unclear even after the
In the year of 2012, Star India filed a suit judgment. There are many unsolved
against the organizations IdeaCellular, questions including the main one whether in
OnMobile and Cricbuzz.12 Star India who at a cricket match or sporting event there exists
the time was the broadcaster for cricket in quasi property rights over its news and facts.
India had the support from the BCCI who It still remains unclear if the restrictions
according to them had proprietary rights over mentioned in the judgment apply only to the
the information of the cricketing events internet or to mobile updates as well. In
organized by them as they were the sole many jurisdictions, data rights are generally
organizer and promoter of international not recognized but the efforts and investment
cricket in India. According to Star, the three of organizers need to regard. If the mobile
12
STAR India Private Ltd. v. Akuate Internet Services
and Ors. CM APPL. 4665/2013
_____________________________________________________________________________________
www.supremoamicus.org
 SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 16 ISSN 2456-9704

_____________________________________________________________________________________
updates are not legal, then what about the Operators who get the feed from the
consumers who post statistics in the social respective television networks.
media. However, this is not always the case.
Sometimes certain legislations of India
THE FINAL RESULT AND THE require sports content exclusively acquired
CURRENT SITUATION THROUGH by the broadcaster to be made available
UNION OF INDIA v. BCCI. publicly to all television providers and
The Supreme Court of India finally networks. This is the concept of mandatory
addressed the issue of whether there should sharing. These legislations are mentioned
be mandatory sharing of signals that contain below-:
sports content in 2017 in the case of Union A. Cable Television Networks (Regulation)
of India v. Board of Cricket Control in Act, 1993- Section 814.
India13. The Supreme Court, in the case, This allows the Government to require
addressed two laws that were different but mandatory coverage by all television
had to be applied harminously and together. networks of certain specified channels
According to the Supreme Court, if and through the following procedure-:
where the private broadcasters who acquire
the rights are compulsorily required to share 1. The services are run by India's public
the broadcast with the public broadcaster, broadcaster, Prasar Bharati.
then the retransmission so in effect must be
only limited to the public broadcaster’s 2. The channels are called "Doordarshan"
network and cannot be in any way be channels, channels that are operated by or on
retransmitted on any other private networks. behalf of the Indian parliament.
The current situation of how exactly sports
broadcasting works in India can be explained 3. Accordingly, the Ministry of Information
through the following points-: and Broadcasting (MIB) released multiple
1. The controlling authority of any sport makes notifications ordering private cable operators
available the media rights for that particular to carry all Doordarshan channels
sporting event. compulsorily15.
2. The media rights made available by the
controlling authority are then acquired by a 4. Doordarshan channels are Free-to-air (FTA),
broadcaster from the same authority. This is meaning that no subscription fee has to be
on an extremely exclusive basis. paid by a television network to carry it on its
3. The Multiple System Operators who act network.
basically as simple television networks get
the sporting event available to them by the
broadcaster after the payment of a fee.
4. The final customers can subscribe to the
sporting event through various Local Cable

13 14
Union of India v. Board of Control for Cricket in Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1993
15
India and Ors., Supreme Court of India, SLP(C) Nos. The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory
4574-4575 of 2015, para. 22. Sharing with Prasar Bharati Act), 2007.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
www.supremoamicus.org
 SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 16 ISSN 2456-9704

_____________________________________________________________________________________
B. The Sports Broadcasting (Mandatory mobile connectivity among the Indian
Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 200716 population would change the nature of
(Sports Act)- Section 3. broadcasting and the way the Indian public
According to the provision, It is mandatory consumes sports content. The involvement
that private broadcasters share with Prasar of Internet and digital platform operators
Bharati the signals of some exclusively (which are traditionally unable to be
acquired sporting events. regarded as broadcasters) in the purchase and
delivery of premium sport rights is part of a
1. The Government may notify an event as a broader change in the media sport content
"nationally significant sporting event"17. market, which means a shift from the
existing "broadcast model" to the
2. Even if a private broadcaster has acquired ‘networked model,' described by' digital
exclusively the rights to a notified event, it plenitude' of new technology, has
has to share its signals with Prasar Bharati. significantly reduced the barriers to the
marketing of sports content in companies
3. The channels of Prasar Bharati shall be and sporting organizations able to produce,
mandatory for all television networks in manage, and distribute popular sport content.
accordance with Section 8 of the CTN Act. Moreover, the smartphone's increase as the
app used to handle most of our everyday
Therefore, the above two laws result in the activities has allowed us to always consume
access by public broadcasters to the content content irrespective of where we are in.
acquired on private broadcasters, with no fee The focus for Indian sporting groups /
payable to the private broadcaster directly. federations, and broadcasters is currently on
As a result, television networks stopped extending their events to the largest audience
signing up for private broadcasters as the in India, including those population groups
content could be easily viewed by the public and regions that have been previously
broadcaster. In order to acquire exclusive ignored, as the television penetration and
rights to broadcast such activities, a private Internet access continue to grow across the
broadcaster usually pays a high fee. The country. In this regard, it should be noted that
failure to substitute their investment due to certain Indian Sports broadcasters are trying
the non-subscribing service providers could to diversify the availability of live sports
result in significant revenue losses for feeds with commentary and coverage to
broadcasters (and sports). extend the audience's audience in the
vernacular languages of the south and the
WHAT IS THE FUTURE AND THE ROAD east. In addition, licensing agreements of
AHEAD? broadcasters, mobile networks and service
This is the social media stage and any or providers will likely allow sports content to
every news or sports event that isn’t made be widely disseminated through their
accessible on it is pretty much considered mobiles and digital services to the broader
irrelevant. The expansion of Internet and

16 17
MIB notification dated 12 June 2015, available at: Section 3, he Sports Broadcasting Signals
https://digitalindiamib.com/ADVISORY_for_mandat (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati Act), 2007.
ory_DD_Channels.pdf
_____________________________________________________________________________________
www.supremoamicus.org
 SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 16 ISSN 2456-9704

_____________________________________________________________________________________
audience as smart phones become the key
and preferred source of view for consumers.

The role of sports governing agencies and

event organisers is also to maintain a balance
between the security of exclusive interests of
the broadcasters against the interests of
distribution of sport events and their content
and broader public access. The significant
investment in broadcasting rights from
broadcasters is now underpinning the
sustainability and profitability of most sports
competitions and events. However, the
continued absences in sporting events /
competitions on free-to-air channels or state-
owned public broadcaster channels, where
multiple sports attempt to catch public
attention at almost the same time, reduces
fan interaction and such a sport's ability to
attract fans and new audiences beyond the
current fan circle. While this may not be a
problem in India at the moment, particularly
with cricket as an undisputed leader, and the
current mandatory sharing system, it is a
factor worth considering given the rapidly
changing technology and consumer
preferences among consumers and fans, as
well as the increasing demand and
availability of a more diverse range of sports
and entertainment activities.

The Sport Broadcasting industry is invited to

always focus its vision and practices on the
sport enthusiasts and the viewer. In order to
encourage and promote the priority given to
the public interest, sport law and regulations
must be aimed at a balanced blend of
regulations, both visionary as well as the free
market.

*****

_____________________________________________________________________________________
www.supremoamicus.org