INTRODUCTION
Public service broadcasting in India has evolved into a central pillar of democratic communication, cultural expression, and media governance. Conceived through institutions such as Doordarshan and All India Radio, its raison d’être has been to guarantee universal access to information and serve citizens irrespective of economic or social status.[1]. This mission aligns with the broader philosophy of Public Service Broadcasting (PSB), which historically emerged in contrast to two dominant models of broadcasting: the commercial model, shaped by market mechanics of demand and supply, and the state‑controlled model, justified as the state was seen as the guarantor of public interest. PSB developed as a third model, a middle path rooted in distrust of both unregulated markets and concentrated state power, seeking to create independent institutions[2]. In this spirit that Anthony Smith described the BBC as “the greatest instrument of social democracy of the century,” capturing the normative aspirations that PSB continues to embody.
Building on this evolution of public broadcasting, Doordarshan emerged in 1959 and began daily telecasts in 1965, initially functioning under All India Radio until their separation in 1976[3]. Modelled on Western European PSB systems, both operated directly under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The push for autonomy gained momentum after the Verghese Committee’s recommendations, eventually leading to the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, coming into force in 1997[4] [5].
CABLE TELEVISION NETWORK IN INDIA
These institutional developments unfolded alongside a rapidly commercialising media environment. The commercial rise of cable television in India began in 1989 with small local networks distributing content sourced from film and music distributors[6]. The arrival of international satellite television in 1991 accelerated this growth dramatically: subscriber numbers expanded from 410,000 in 1992 to over 91 million by 2009, reflecting an almost 40% yearly increase. To regulate this rapidly expanding and fragmented sector, Parliament enacted the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The Act introduced comprehensive obligations to standardize equipment used, prohibit retransmission of content that violated Programme or Advertisement Codes, and empower the Central Government to regulate pricing for basic free‑to‑air packages. Most significantly, Section 8 created the “must‑carry” mandate, requiring all registered operators to relay Doordarshan channels and those operated on behalf of Parliament[7].
Although cable subscriptions have declined from 151 million in 2018 to 111 million in 2024[8]The broadcasting landscape has broadened considerably, now comprising 908 private channels and 381 Free Dish channels. The industry’s commercial value has also grown substantially—from ₹25,700 crore in 2009 (with 66% derived from subscription revenue)[9] to approximately $22 billion in 2024[10].
COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPORTS IN INDIA
Sports, meanwhile, occupy a unique cultural position in India, driving one of the country’s most lucrative and rapidly expanding broadcasting markets. Media rights are secured through exceptionally high‑value auctions, exemplified by the IPL rights (2022–2027) sold to Disney Star for ₹23,575 crore[11] and the digital rights acquired by Reliance Viacom for ₹20,500 crore. JioCinema’s purchase of ICC World Cup rights (2024–2027) for USD 3 billion reflects this trend[12]. These investments are sustained by substantial advertising and sponsorship revenues, including Tata’s reported ₹400 crore annual IPL title sponsorship[13]. The Indian sports industry mirrors this, currently valued at USD 21.28 billion and projected to reach USD 42.42 billion by 2031[14], underscoring the scale and commercial dynamism of the sector.
SPORTS BROADCASTING SIGNALS ACT AND INTERPRETATION OF ‘MUST-CARRY’ AND ‘MUST SHARE’ OBLIGATIONS
Within this landscape, the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, establishes a framework to ensure public access to major sporting events. It requires broadcasters holding rights to any “sporting event of national importance” to share a clean, advertisement‑free, live signal with Prasar Bharati for retransmission on its terrestrial and DTH platforms. To balance public access with commercial investment, the Act mandates a revenue‑sharing formula—75:25 for television and 50:50 for radio—in favour of the private rights holder. Non-compliance attracted penalties of up to ₹1 crore, including suspension or revocation of the licence as well.[15].
However, the practical implications of this statutory framework have been shaped significantly by judicial interpretation, as discussed below:
The Madras High Court’s decision in Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group v. Prasar Bharati (2004)[16] Became a turning point in the debate over free public access to major sporting events. The dispute arose during an India–Pakistan cricket series. Ten Sports, which held exclusive broadcasting rights from the Pakistan Cricket Board, planned to air the matches on its pay-TV channel. Prasar Bharati had failed to secure terrestrial rights, prompting a civic group to file a PIL arguing that millions dependent on free‑to‑air television would be unfairly denied access to a sporting event of national significance.
At the core of the dispute was the need to balance public access to information with the broadcaster’s commercial interests. The petitioners argued that airwaves constitute public property and that limiting access to the telecast would encroach on rights under Article 19(1)(a). Ten Sports maintained that its exclusive rights, obtained through significant investment, should not be interfered with by judicial direction.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Prasar Bharati v. BCCI (2017)[17] addressed public access to major sporting events and the commercial rights of private broadcasters. The dispute arose after BCCI granted exclusive telecast rights to Star India and ESPN, while the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, required rights holders to share live signals of events of national importance with Prasar Bharati for retransmission on its terrestrial and DTH platforms. Prasar Bharti aired these feeds on DD National. However, because DD National is subject to a “must‑carry” obligation under Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks Act, cable operators were compelled to relay the channel, effectively giving subscribers free access to premium cricket content. Therefore, the respondents argued that this undermined their subscription‑based revenue model.
The central legal issue was whether Section 3 of the Sports Act permitted Prasar Bharti to broadcast shared signals only on its own platforms, or whether the mandatory carriage of DD National on private cable networks indirectly expanded the scope of the sharing obligation.
The Supreme Court, upholding the Delhi High Court, adopted a strict reading of Section 3 of the Sports Act, emphasising that mandatory signal sharing constitutes a limited intrusion into private copyright. The provision permits retransmission only on Prasar Bharati’s own terrestrial and DTH networks, and the omission of “cable networks” was treated as a deliberate statutory boundary. The Court clarified that the “must‑carry” obligation under Section 8 of the Cable Act cannot be used to broaden the “must‑share” mandate under the Sports Act. Consequently, Prasar Bharati was barred from airing shared sports signals on DD channels carried by cable operators and may use them solely on its terrestrial and DTH platforms, preserving private broadcasters’ commercial exclusivity.
CONCLUSION:
Taken together, the statutory framework and judicial decisions reveal a regulatory landscape that continually negotiates the boundaries between commercial exclusivity and public access. While the Sports Broadcasting Signals Act establishes the importance of ensuring that events of national importance remain available to all citizens, the courts have clarified that such access must operate within clearly defined statutory limits. The trajectory of cases—from the Madras High Court’s expansive view of public interest to the Supreme Court’s more restrained interpretation—illustrates the complexity of balancing constitutional values with market realities.
Author(s) Name: Arush Shenoy
References:
[1]UNESCO, World Radio and Television Council and Conseil mondial de la radiotélévision (Canada), Public Broadcasting: Why? How? (UNESCO 2001).
[2] Ibid.
[3] RS Shitak, Neither Independent nor Self-Sufficient: The Story of India’s Public Service Broadcasting (2017) 8(1) Media Watch 56.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, Prasar Bharati, <https://mib.gov.in/ministry/organizations/prasar-bharati> accessed 27 December 2025.
[6] Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Implementation of Digital Addressable Cable TV Systems in India (Recommendations, 2010).
[7] Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995, ss 4A,5, 6, 8, 9
[8] EY and All India Digital Cable Federation, State of Cable TV Distribution in India (2025).
[9] Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (n 10).
[10] Research and Markets, ‘India Broadcasting and Cable TV Market by Channel Type, by Operating Entity, by Revenue Source, by State, Competition, Forecast & Opportunities, 2025’ < https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5105843/india-broadcasting-and-cable-tv-market-by> accessed 27 December 2025.
[11] ‘IPL Media Rights Sold for Rs 48,390 Crore for a Five‑Year Period: BCCI Secretary Jay Shah’ The Economic Times (14 June 2022) < https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/sports/ipl-media-rights-sold-for-rs-48390-crore-for-a-five-year-period-bcci-secretary-jay-shah/articleshow/92208961.cms> accessed 27 December 2025.
[12] ‘ICC Hit with Major Shock 2 Months Before T20 WC; JioStar Sends Notice to End Deal, RMG Ban Key Reason- Report’ MSN (8 December 2025) <https://www.msn.com/en-in/sports/cricket/icc-hit-with-major-shock-2-months-before-t20-wc-jiostar-sends-notice-to-end-deal-rmg-ban-key-reason-report/ar-AA1RVcPx> accessed 27 December 2025
[13] Pradeep Kumar, ‘The Evolution of Sports Commercialization in India: Trends, Challenges and Future Directions’ (2023) 11(12) International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts i321.
[14] KPMG, and Sportstar, Sportlight: The Business of Sports in India (KPMG 2025).
[15] Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, ss 3 and 4.
[16] Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group v. Prasar Bharti 2004 (2) CTC 161 (Mad. HC).
[17] Prasar Bharti v. Board of Control for Cricket in India (Civil Appeal Nos. 10732-10733 of 2017) (SC).
