A. P. LEGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.
Legal Empowerment through Professional Excellence

Table of Contents

• List of Abbreviations

• Index of Authorities

• Statement of Jurisdiction

• Chronology of Events

• Statement of Facts

• Issues Raised

• Arguments Advanced

• Summary of Arguments

• Prayer

List of Abbreviations

Art    -----------------------           Article

HC    -----------------------           High Court

No.    -----------------------           Number

Vs.    -----------------------           Versus

Sec.   -----------------------           Section

Govt.-----------------------           Government

Index of Authorities

Books

• Dictionary
• Constitution of India P.M. Bakshi

Cases

• Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India
• Sunil Batra Vs Union of India

Statement of Jurisdiction

The Petitioner brings this case before the Honourable High Court (Moot Court of Pendekanti Law College) in a Petition against the interference of Prasar Bharati and Union of India into the Contractual agreement between petitioners.

Chronology of Events

• August 2005            Exclusive license granted to Nebula by BCCI for all the matches within the territory of India involving India

• December 2005         PIL filed before High Court of Bombay seeking a direction to share live feed of the upcoming cricket series between India and Pakistan, and was Nebula was directed to share live feed to Doordarshan.

• March 2006               WP filed before Delhi High Court by the Respondent claiming rights to broadcast as it was under a duty to carry events of ‘national importance’ and the court directed to share the feed with a time-delay of 7 minutes.

• 2007                           Act passed by Parliament making it mandatory for all sports content rights holders in India to compulsorily share live feed of sporting events of national importance with Prasar Bharati.

Statement of Facts

Fact 1:

Prasar Bharati is a public broadcasting corporation established under the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990.

Fact 2:

Nebula Media Ltd. is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 of which majority shareholders are Indian Citizens.

Fact 3:

Nebula has been granted an exclusive license by the BCCI under a Media Rights agreement for telecast within the territory of India, of all cricket matches involving India, and to be played in India for a period of five years from August 2005 to July 2010.

Media Rights means and includes, without limitation, rights of transmission through all means including:

1. Terrestrial Transmission;
2. Satellite Transmission;
3. Cable Transmission
4. Broadband Internet Transmission

Fact 4:

In December 2005, the Bombay High court directed Nebula Media to share live feed of the India-Pakistan cricket match on a PIL thereby causing a financial loss to Nebula and also breach of contractual terms with BCCI.

Fact 5:

In March 2006, the Delhi High court directed Nebula Media to share live feed of the then upcoming cricket series between India and Australia.

Fact 6:

Enactment of Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act 2007 allowing Prasar Bharati to receive live clean feed of cricket matches and transmit the same via its satellites allowing private cable operators and DTH viewers free access to live feed.

Fact 7:

Petitioner sent a legal notice asking for Prasar Bharati to either encrypt its satellite transmission during the period of telecast of the cricket matches obtained from Nebula, in order to restrict access only to terrestrial network and Doordarshan DTH viewers and prevent access by cable operators and private DTH operators, or in the alternative, to induce a time-delay of 20 minutes in its broadcast

Fact 7:

Prasar Bharati replied that it is not obliged to encrypt signals under the law and that such encryption would incur an additional strain on the public exchequer and is unwarranted to protect the petitioner’s rights.

Issues Raised

thus amounting to the infringement of Nebula’s rights to be treated equally under Art 14, to carry out business in the interests of general public, and also 300 A, not to deprive any person of their property.

Issue No. 1:

Is the report a secret report or a secret document, the discussion of which might or will affect the interests of the state or security of the state or Sovereignty and Integrity of the State?

Issue No. 2:

Does the Deputy Commissioner of Police have the authority to arrest a member of the Legislative Assembly for quoting and discussing a report at the Assembly?

Issue No. 3:

Whether the Section 5 has been correctly interpreted in this case or no?

Issue No. 4:

Whether Art. 194 (2) has been applied before the framing charges against the petitioner?

Issue No. 5:

Whether Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied?

Arguments Advanced

Issue No. 1:

Is the report a secret report or a secret document, the discussion of which might or will affect the ‘interests of the state’ or ‘security of the state’ or ‘Sovereignty and Integrity of the State’ or Public order?

It is humbly submitted that the report is not a secret report or a secret document.

The intelligence reports about the illegal activities of ‘Black Tigers’, submitted in January was ignored by the Government, had been quoted in certain newspapers. The Opposition Parties also strongly criticized the inaction of the Government in preventing the riot. The report was already publicly quoted and referred by certain newspapers and the Opposition Parties.

Therefore, the quoting and discussion of the report in the Assembly by the Petitioner will not affect the interests of the state or security of the state or sovereignty and integrity of the state or public order.

Hence, it is submitted that the report is not a secret report or a secret document.

Issue No. 2:

Does the Deputy Commissioner of Police have the authority to arrest a member of the Legislative Assembly for quoting and discussing a report at the Assembly?

It is humbly submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Police cannot  arrest a Member of Legislative Assembly without any procedure.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police has no authority to arrest a Member of Legislative Assembly for quoting and discussing a report in the Assembly and has exceeded his limits of jurisdiction. The discussion of the report in the Assembly does not amount to any crime.

Hence, it is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Police has no authority to arrest an MLA.

Issue No. 3:

Whether the Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1923 has been correctly interpreted in this case or no?

It is humbly submitted that there Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act has been wrongly interpreted.

Section 5 (1) clearly states that any person having in his possession or control any secret official code or password or any sketch plan, model, article note, document or information which relates to or is used in a prohibited place or relates to anything in such a place or which is likely to assist, directly or indirectly an enemy or which relates to  matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the integrity or  sovereignty of the state, security of the state or friendly relation with foreign states or which has been made or obtained in contravention of the Act ……..

The report quoted and discussed is not a secret report or secret document the quoting or discussing or disclosure of which is not going to affect the integrity and sovereignty of the state or security of the state or public order. Therefore the Police has wrongly interpreted Section 5 of the Official Secret Act 1923.

Hence, it is submitted that Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1923 has been wrongly interpreted.

Issue No. 4:

Whether Art. 194 (2) has been applied?

It is humbly submitted that Art 194 (2) has not been applied.

Art. 194 (2) clearly states that no member of the Legislature of a state shall be liable to any proceeding in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.

Hence, it is submitted that Art. 194 (2) of the Constitution has not been applied and has violated the constitutional provision under Art 194 (2) of the Constitution of India.

Issue No. 5:

Whether Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied?

I humbly submit that Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied.

Section 482 clearly states that nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Since there is no evidence in the Final Report other than the fact that the petitioner had received an intelligence report which is not a secret document or secret report as mentioned in the previous issues, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to prevent the abuse of the process of the Honourable Court can be applied.

Hence, it is submitted that Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied.

Summary of Arguments

• The report quoted and discussed by the petitioner is not a secret report or a secret document.
• The Deputy Commissioner of Police has no authority to arrest a Member of the Legislative Assembly with any procedure.
• Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1923 has been wrongly interpreted by the Police.
• Art 194 (2) of the Constitution of India has not been applied thus violating the Constitutional provision
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied

Prayer

In the aforesaid circumstance , I pray the Honourable High Court to quash the Final Report of Police and thus charges against the Petitioner.