PREVIOUS HOUR

MCM-SSS/2A/1-00

(ֳ֬ (0 00 ׸֮) ߚ߮ )

ִ֮ ֚ (׿ִ ֻ) : , ָ ֻ֮ (ָ ָ ֣ ׮־ֵ ָ) ׾֬-2007 ִ֣Ԯ ׻֋ ֛ ֛ ָ֤֟ ִ ׾֤ ֋ ֯ ֮Ӥ ֮ ד֟ ָ ָ ֣ ָ ֻ֮ ׮־ֵ ָ ִ֬ ™ߵ ׬ִ , ו֮ ֻ ׾֬ , ׾֬ ֮ ׻֋ ׾֬ ٛ ãׯ֟ ׻֋ ֵ ֵ וִ ָָ ָ֟ ׻֋ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮־֤ օ ֕ ָ և ׮ֵ ֣ ָ, ֲֻ ָ ֻ ָ ֻ ֻ ׻֋ ָָ ײ  ֜־ ־ 60 ןֿ֟ ָ ָ ָ ׮ֳԸ , ו ֻ ׾֬ ָ Ԯ ֣ ־ פֵ ֟ , ו ֮ ߛ ״ֻ֟ , ֮ և ֻ , ï ֻ ֲ Ԯ ָ ׮ֵ ִ֬ ֟ ִִ ָ, ֻ, ױ, ֮ ߕ ֲֵ ָ Ԯ פ ֮ ֻ ָ 15 ָ ֻ ߛ פ ֟ ֮ ï ֻ 24 ָ ָ ֬׸ ָ פֵ ֟ օ ָ ָָ ִִ ߕ ֟ ִ և ֮ ֣ ֕ ãן ֮ ߅ ײֻ ָ ֮ ִָ-4 ָ ֵ ֻ ָ-Ùߕ פߵ ֻ ֮ 000և0 և 껛 ָߵ ֮ܵ 89 ָ ֮ ֻ ָ ָ ߵ ׬ָ ֮ ֻ ֡ , ָ ָ ָ ֻ ϣִ օ ֲ ֯ ײֻ ֋ ָ ִֻ ֋י ֣ ָָ ß ֟ օ ׻֋ ָָ ãן ָָ ִ ß ׾ ֲ ٛ ִ֣Ԯ , ٛ ֲ ײֻ ֋ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ׾ ׾֬ ֤ Ԯ ֿ־ ׾֤ ֻ ™ߵ ӟָ™ߵ ֮ ד֟ ֛օ ׮֕ ֻ ׬ָ ֟ և ָ ָ ָ ֣ ָ ִִ ֵ֤ ֣ ֣ ָ ָ ꮵ ֵ֤ , ߤ

֮֮ߵ ӡ , ָ ֛ әÙ ֟ ֣ ָ ֻ ֟ , ֮֟ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֛ әÙ ֋י ײֻ ֵ ֵ ׯϵ ׯϵ ־֮ֆ ִ֟ ׾֬ ֵ ֵ ׾֬ ָ 98 ָ ָ ָ ׸ ָ ãן ײֻ ֮ ֤ ֟ 98 ָ ֮ܵ , ֳ ֋߅ Ӿ ׮ֵ֤ ׾֬ ֲֻ (2B ָ ֿ:)

-SSS/NBR-2B/1.05.

ִ֮ ֚ (֟) : ׮ֵ֤ ׾֬֋ Ӿ ֲֻ , ׾׳֮ ׮ֵ֤ ׾֬֋ ֲֻ , ָ ײֻ֕ ֲֻ , ֲ ָ ײֻ֕ ֲֻ , 00 ֮ ׾֬ ֲֻ ֟ ӡ ֵ֟ ׾֬ ֵ ֵ , ׻֋ , ׾֬ ִ֣Ԯ , -߮ ־ օ

ӡ ׮׿֟ ׾֬ ֵ ֵ Ӥ ֻ֮ ״ֻ , , ֻ ֻ ֻ֮ ״ֻ ׻֋ ֵ ..(ִֵ ә)... ־ ..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Mr. Pathak, wind up. You are making points, but what can I do? There is time constraint.

ִ֮ ֚ : ׻֋ ꮵ ֵ ֋, ֮ ï ִֻ , ֜־ פ

׾֬ ™ߵ ֵ ֵ , ִ ™ߵ כև ֵ ־ ׮׿֟ ֺ ֣-֣ ָ ִִ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ֟ ֯ ָ־ֵ ־֮ֆ ׾ֵ , ֣-֣ ָ ָ , ָ , Ӿ ִִ , ָ֬ ׯϵ , ֲ ִ ״ֻ

, - ֟ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ Ԯ Ӥ Ùָ , ֲ֕ Ԯ ׿֟ ־ ԓָ , ֤ ׻ֵ֟ Ùָ ׬ ֲ֕ Ԯ ֿ־ ָ ׸ ֤ , ׸ ֤ ֻ֟, ױ֋ә ԓ׸ ײ֮ ָ ָ ִ ׻֙ ִ ß ֵօ ָ Ù؛ 23 ׸ ־ פ ֋ ו ïߛ ӡ ׾֬ ָ ֋, ֮ ֮ ֙ , ׾ֵ ָ ֮ , ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ֮־֤

SHRI N. JOTHI (TAMIL NADU): Sir, I am also a sportsman during my college days.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT:Oh! How many years before?

SHRI N. JOTHI: About thirty years before.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: What happened thereafter?

SHRI N. JOTHI: Thereafter, I got into my studies.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Mr. Jothi, there is time constraint.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Yes, Sir. I know. I want to speak a little about the legal position of this Bill.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: But remember, your party has only six minutes. I will stick to the time.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: Sir, it is not sportsman like spirit.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Even though I was a sportsman earlier, I may not be in a position, as a Member of Parliament,...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Here also you are like a sportsman.

SHRI N. JOTHI: to support this Bill. I see several grey areas -- if you look at legally -- in this Bill. I doubt very much about the validity of the Bill before court of law. I feel it would be struck down. Sir, I make a caution now itself. I will list them out. I am not saying something inhuman, etc. But, my feeling is, it may not be possible that this Bill sustain the scrutiny of court. The reasons are many. I will start mentioning them now. Mr. Munsi, Sir, I don't know whether you have got legal backing. I don't know much about you, except yourself being a sportsman and a good person.

Sir, kindly see Clause 2(s). It says, "the sporting event of national importance would be decided by publication in the Gazette." What is the guideline for that? Who will decide on that? Suppose an officer decides that an event is not of national importance, then the purpose of the Bill is defeated. (CONTD. BY USY "2C")

-NBR-USY/2C/1.10

SHRI N. JOTHI (CONTD.): So, who will decide about its publication in the gazette because only then this Act will come into force? So, this is one grey area where guidelines are lacking.

Secondly, clause 3 deals with the live coverage. Suppose a service provider transmits the signals one minute later, it will not come under live coverage. So, the Act will not apply here. It can be manoeuvred technically. Suppose the transmission of a cricket match is delayed by one minute, it will not be considered as a live coverage. Then, this Bill will not have any teeth. This is number two.

Thirdly, the national importance of sports events can be determined only between the Prasar Bharati and the service provider by means of certain terms and conditions. Suppose, the service provider does not come forward for an agreement, how can you force him? He must come forward for an agreement. It is not you only who is ready with a pen and a paper. The service provider should also come forward. Where is the machinery here to compel him to come forward for an agreement? It is lacking in this Bill, because let me read it out. Clause 3 says, "To re-transmit the same on its terrestrial networks and Direct-to-Home networks in such manner and on such term and conditions as may be specified". Such terms and conditions specified by whom? By the parties; both by the service provider as well as by the Prasar Bharati. Suppose, he is not coming forward, how will you make use of this Act? This is another grey area. Sir, I will go one step further. Kindly go to clause 3(2) which says that the terms and conditions of sub-section (1) shall also provide that the advertisement revenue shall be shared. That means, it reinforces that the service provider must come forward for terms and conditions. For example, I am one of the service providers and I am not willing to come forward before the Government of India. What is the use of this Act? This is another grey area. Then, come to clause 4 which says, "The Government may specify penalties to be imposed, including suspension or revocation of licence, permission or registration, for violation of various terms and conditions as may be specified under section 3, subject to the condition that amount of a pecuniary penalty shall not exceed one crore rupees". If there is a penalty possibility for a service provider to pay, why should he come forward? He will not come forward. Sir, I do not know why this Bill is being brought forward in such a hurry and what is the purpose of it -- what is the real purpose of it and what is the inner agenda behind this Bill. Of course, I can visualise, but I won't tell it openly. This is to embarrass somebody. This is certainly to embarrass somebody that this Bill has been brought in. I can visualise that. I am also in party for quite sometime. But I won't tell that in public. But the real intention behind this Bill is not to serve public. I don't think this is all possible because knowing well that I will be penalised why should I come forward for terms and conditions. I will not. So, unless terms and conditions are there, this Bill will not apply. I have said this several times. I will not repeat that again.

If you look at the ratio of sharing, it is 75:25. What will happen if he does not agree to that because you have brought it into the bILL itself? How will you fulfil it? You can't act beyond the law. 'Seventy-five' is put in the statute. Suppose he says that HE wants 76 per cent or 80 per cent, what will you do? These are the things that you have to look into.

Further, no compensation has been provided there. Only sharing of revenue has been provided. Under article 19(1)(G), under the Chapter The Fundamental Rights, one is free to carry on trade. But this is subject to certain limitations. Government is not at all blamed. We can lay hands on everything. The Government can't say that. They are protected under article 19(1)(G). Without compensation and only having revenue on sharing basis, I don't think this could stand the scrutiny of law. Compensation is not a part of this Bill. (Contd. by 2d -- VP)

VP/MP/1.15/2D

SHRI N. JOTHI (CONTD.): Then, finally, Sir, I only look at the Bill from a different angle. You have now brought this Bill aiming at some event. I am asking myself one question. Given the scenario of UPA Government's functioning, had the Sun Television Network added the sports channel, would you have brought this legislation? I don't think you would have brought it. It is impossible for you to bring it. It is not possible. It is, absolutely, impossible for them to even think of it. Anyway, some big service providers' are there in the field, they thought about this legislation. Sir, I was discussing this with some people; some my legal colleagues. It is nothing but copyright violation. This enactment is nothing but copyright violation. And, you are violating this by means of a statute, by the teeth of a Parliamentary legislation, you want to violate copyright. I do not think the court will agree to this. Then, Sir, it is rightly said in my private conference and please permit me to say this. Sir, it has rightly been said in conversation with me. ..(Interruptions).. All right, it is stated by some of my friends that it is nothing but thieving by legislation; theft by legislation. It is theft to which I do not want to be a party. Even though I am a sports lover and I love sports, but still my vote cannot be in favour of this Bill, which by law wants to thieve somebody's property. I am not prepared for that.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Please come to the last point.

SHRI N.JOTHI: The Intellectual Property Rights are recognised by our legislation of Parliament. You are interfering in that also. Several cognate Acts are being interfered with by this Bill. I caution this Government not to be in a hurry. Please don't be a laughing stock before the court. This Bill, I caution on legal principles, not on sentiments, not on national patriotism, not as a sports lover. I caution it on legal principles for which this legislation is created and this Parliament is created. We must make proper and correct law and not bad law. So, I caution the Government to please think several times before passing this Bill. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

. ִ ӛָ (ײָ) : ֮֮ߵ ֳ֬ , ָ ֻ֮ ׾֬, 2007 ִ֣Ԯ ӡ ׾֬ ֮ ׻֋ ֬և , ֛ ֮֟ ֟ ִֵ ֛ ßֵ, ֟ Ӳ׬֟ , ֤ ã֟ ֮֮ߵ ֟ Ӳ׬֟ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֟ Ӳ׬֟ ֛ ßֵ

, ׾ , , ָ ֟ꅠ ֟ ָ ֳ֕ "passion" ֲ ϵ ֕ ֵ , passion ֵ ֟ "" ֕ ֮ ֵ ֲ ָ ֣ ָ , ָ ־ָ ֟ ֓ ־֮ ״ֻ , ֛ , ״ֻ ֟

, Ӿ ֟ ו ִֵ ֜ , ֟ Ӿ , ֲ ֟ ꅠ ֲ , ֚- Ӿ ֮ ׻֋ ִ ꅠ ָ ߛ , ֕ ׾ ֟ -߮ ՙ ֛ , -߮ כ ֛ , ֻ , ָ ָӛ ָ ֕ ׮ֵ ִ ֲ ָ ֣ , ֮ ֮ ֟, .. ָ - ֟ ֲ ߴ ߟ֟ , ֲ ֤ ֟ ָ ֲ Ù ӛߕ , ֲ .. , ֟ ״֮֙ օ (2E/ASC ָ ֿ:)

ASC-PB/2E/1.20

. ִ ӛָ (֟) : ָ ֻ , ָ ֮ ãן , ָ ָ֮ ߅ ֛ ֵ ֮ Ԯ ָ և Ù ֻ ֵߠ , ׻ ָ ־ , ֟ ֟ , ֵ ԅ , ־ֿ ۠ Ԯ ִ֬ ֵָ ָ , ׻֋ ™ ֯ ײֻ , Ӿ ãן ָ ߾ ָ ߾ ֻ ֮ ֻ Ӿ ָ և ָ ãן Ӿ ߾ , ָ ֻ Ԯ ִ ֲֻ ׻֋ פ Ӿ Ԯ ָ ֱ ׯ֟ Ӿ ֵ ֮ ד֟ ֟ , ָ ֮ 98 ָ ֮ܵ ׻֋ ָ ׻֋ ߵ ׬ָ ֮ ֻ Ԯ ֻ ֡ ֲ ָ ֮ ֛ ֮ ֛ ֮ܵ ָ ãן ײֻ ֯ ײֻ , ָ ָ ߾ ָ ֛ , ָ ֮ , ֺ ֓ ֜և ָ ָ ֛ ֻ 90 ״֮֙ ֕ ֵ ӓ ֕ ָָ ִ ֬ ָ ִ , ֬ ӓ פ , ׸ פ ֻ , ן־ָ ֟ ִ ׸ ֟ ָ , ׿ֵ֮ ״ , ִ ָ ãן , פ ׿ֵ֮ ָ ָֻ ֟ ֮ ׮ֵ - , 껛 , ָֻ ֲ ָ ֮ ֛ , 껛 ֟ ׿ ״ ֟ ׿ֵ֮ ״ֻ ֟ , ָ ״ ָ ָָ ֮ ֮ ָ Ӿ ꮙ , ׻֋ ꮙ ֺ פ ָ ꮙ ׿ ...(ִֵ ә)...׮׿֟ ׿ֵ֮ ״ , ָ ָ ֛ ϤԮ ״ֻ ָ ָ׸ , , ֛ ֻ , ָ ָ ӡ , ׻֋ ׮ ׻֋ ïָ׿֯ ״ֻ֟ ï ״ֻ֟ ֛ ܵ ״ֻ֟ ״ֻ ִָ֓֡ ֜ ׸ֵԴ ֤ ֻ ֵ ֮ ֮ ֛ ãן ו֮ ִ ֮ , ו֮ ׸ϕꮙ , ׸ֵָ ֤ ָָ ִ פ ׾֬֋ , ߾֮ ߮ ֵ ׾֬֋ ׻֋ ָ ָ ָָ ֮ , ִ֤ , ו֮֟ ִ֤ ֕ ֮ ָ ߅ ׻֋ ׸ֵָ ֤ ֳֻ ָָ ֲ ֣, ӡ ֬և ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

(2F/SKC ָ ָ)


2f/1.25/skc-lt

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Shrimati N.P. Durga. Please stick to the time. You have got only three minutes; please don't take more time than that.

SHRIMATI N.P. DURGA (ANDHRA PRADESH): Sir, I rise to support this Bill moved by the hon. Minister of Information and Broadcasting. Though the Bill is a simple one, it is attached to the sentiments of sports-loving people who are eagerly waiting for this move of the Government. Hon. Minister himself is associated with football, and so, he would understand the difficulties of sports-loving people when live telecast of any cricket match, that too, held in India is not available. So, it is a good move. But the entire problem arose because as early as in November 2005, the Government had issued guidelines without giving any statutory backing. The recent rift between Prasar Bharati and a private TV channel in connection with the telecast of One Day Cricket Series between India and West Indies led to promulgation of the Sports Broadcasting Signals Ordinance, 2007. The Bill also assumes importance when in only four days from today the Cricket World Cup is going to begin in the West Indies.

Sir, the Government had promulgated this Ordinance to unduly favour, if I may say so, Prasar Bharati. Prasar Bharati is supposed to be both economically and operationally an independent organization. Therefore, the question is limited only to telecast of sports, and not to the development of sports. The whole problem arose since Nimbus got telecast rights through an open bid, in which Doordarshan had also taken part, and the BCCI held the bid and it failed. Under the garb of aam admi, the Government is twisting the arm of the private player. On the one hand, Government says that there should be a level-playing field and on the other, under the garb of aam admi, take these kinds of measures. To what extent is it prudent? I leave it to the Minister.

Sir, the Government is encouraging a game like Cricket. In fact, it should have taken pride in saying that they are taking steps to promote soccer, hockey, kabaddi, kho-kho, etc.

Sir, the first clarification I wish to seek from the hon. Minister is, what are the reasons or difficulties that Prasar Bharati has in encrypting as suggested by content-provider, and making the content available on DD's terrestrial service and, whether you have any safeguards if you use unencrypted signals. The second one is, is it also true that if you use unencrypted signals, there is a possibility of signals being caught in our neighbouring countries and in West Asia? This may kindly be explained. The other point is, whether it is also true that a technical expert committee has been constituted in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to look into the issue of encryption to prevent the live feed from being pirated by broadcasters and cable TV operators within and outside India. If yes, the details may be given.

Sir, finally, is it not a fact that imminent promulgation of this Ordinance is a blow to the very notion of independent and free private enterprise and issuing Ordinance is in a sense legitimising piracy? The proposed legislation certainly frees Doordarshan from bidding telecast rights because once the private broadcasters win rights, Doordarshan would get unhindered access to it. The Bill does not speak which is of national importance and public interest. I am saying this because cricket certainly comes under the category of national importance, more than archery, football or chess. So, how the Government is going to classify and define a sport as being of national importance and public interest? I would request the hon. Minister to clarify this.

So, Sir, these are some of the issues on which I wish to share my thoughts. I would request the hon. Minister to reply to the questions raised by me. Thank you. (Ends)

פݾֵ֕ (ָӛ) : ֳ֬ , ֮ ײֻ ָ ֮ ׻֋ ָ , ו ׌ ָ ײֻ ֵ , ֱ ׾ָ֓ , ׻ ן ִ֯ ־֮ Ӥ , ֟ ײֻ ִ֬ -߮ ֟ פ ֺ ֮ օ ߤ ו ֯ ֤ ߤ , ָ֮ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ײֻ ָ ֮ Ԯ ָ ָ ֜ ֤ ֮֟ ߅ ָ ״֡ ׾ ֤ Ԯ ָ ֮֯ ֮ Ԯ ׮ֵ֟ ו̴ ִ֟ ֮ , ו֮ ״ֻ , Ԯ ãׯ֟ פօ ׸ִָ ӡ , ֕ ֯ ׾ִ֮ϟ ֟ ָ ָ ֮֮ ֤ օ ֤ , ׮ֵ ״ֻ ֻ ߕ , ִ ׾֮֕ ֵֻ ֋ (NB/2g ָ )

NB/2G/1.30

פݾֵ֕ (֟) : ֮ ָ ָָ , ֯ ֟ ӡ þֵ Ԯ ֮ ֟ , ֻ֟ և ? ׻֋ ֯ ׸ ֲ ִ֟ ֮֯ , ׌ פև 30 ֻ, 35 ֻ, 40 ֻ Ԯ ִ ֲ ֲ ֛ וִָ ִֵ ֟ , ֯ IAS Officers Association ֻ ָ ֯ ֓ , ֯ ִ ֮ ӿ֮ , ֯ ֋ ׻֋ ֻ ֯ ֮ Ԯ ִ֋ ֕ ֮ , ו ֲֻ , ֮ ֮ ִ , ָ ֯ ßֻ , ֲֻ

֯ Ӳ- ֟ ֻ ֯ ן ִٯ֟ ֮֯ , ׻֋ , ֟ , ֟ ֯ ָ֮ ֮ ֟ ֯ ֮֯ ֯ ָ߲ ֤ ׻֋ ֯ ׾ָ֓ ןֲ֨ ֯ ָ߲ ֤ ֮ , ִ ָ߲ ֤ ֣-֣ ֮֯ ֕ ֵ ֯ DTH through פ֋, ֯ DTH, ָ߲ ֤ , ֻ ֟ ֻ , 1991-92 Ùָ .. ߟ-׾֡ ן,. ֯ -֣ ֻ ָ ֯ ִ֓ ִ ֤ ׻֋ , ָ ו֋ ָ ֟ ֯ ֯ ־ , ֮֯ ֕ ֵ 3(1), ֮֯ Terrestrial Transmitters ָ Terrestrial Transmitters , ֯ ֻ ָ ֮ - ײֵ ֮֯ ֻ ֟ ׾֤׿ֵ ֯ ׾֬ ? ָ ֯ ϵ , ֟ ֱև ״ֻ֮ , confusion

ֳ֬ , ײֻ , ן ִٯ֟ , ײֻ ׾ָ , ״ֵ , ֯ ִ֮ ֮ ߮ ו֮ ײֻ ֵ֮ , ֻܵ օ ֯ ֤ ֵ clauses ָ ï™ , ׌֟ ָ ֮֟ ׻֋ ֲ ֯ ֮ , ߕ ֻܵ

ӟ ӡ , ֯ ֟ ֯ ֻ ֋֮ ߛ , ևԱ ֋֮ ߛ , ֿ־ӟ ֮ , ׮ ֋֮ ߛ , ֯ ֱֻ֟ ֟ ׻֋ Ӿ-Ӿ ֟ Դָ֤֮ ֕ Ӿ-Ӿ ֻ ֲ ֤ ׯϵ , ֯ ׾֮֕ פ֮ ׾֬ ִ ֱֻ , ֟ , ׮־־֤ .... (־֮֬) ? ֮ Ӿ ֻ ә ׻֋, 20,000 ֋ ֕ ֻ Ӿ-Ӿ ֟ ֮ ׻֋ ֤ ֤ ֟ ֯ ֮ ֯ Ԯ ֲ פ֟ , ֻ ָ ׿ ֋ , ֮֯ Ӥ פ ָ ֮ ֯ ָ ֵ - ֻ ؙ և , ֮־ ֵ , ֕ ״ֻ ֯ ֵ , ֯ ֻܵ ߕ ׮ָ֯֙ ָ ֻߠ ֋ ֯ ֮ Ԯ ֻ כ כ ֻ ֋ ֯ ߵ֟ ײֻ ֋ , ֟ ֮֮ ׻֋ ָ ִ ֤ ֮ , ִ ֤ ֵ֤ , ָ ֟ ֯ ï™ , ֯ ӿ ִ ֋ ӡ -ִ, ִ ׻֋ ײֻ ֋ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

2H/GSP ָ

GSP-AKG/1:35/2h

SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI (WEST BENGAL): Mr. Vice Chairman, Sir, I stand here not only to support this Bill but also to compliment the hon. Minister who besides being good friend is also a sports person. Sir, normally, I was always opposed to politicians being in sports unless they themselves are sports people. But, today, I think, I have to change my views by seeing the contribution of so many people here whether it is Shri Sharad Pawarji, Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsiji, my friend Shri Digvijay Singhji or Shri Arun Jaitleyji. I think, only the people's representatives will take care and support whatever is good for the people, and, this particular Bill, Sir, is in that direction.

Sir, our friend Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad has already mentioned a lot of stuff. I do not want to get involved into it and he has said it all. Sir, so vividly and so rightly, the hon. Minister gave the background and went back into the history how All India Radio and Doordarshan have been pioneered. We have our hon. Minister for Health sitting here, and, it is known how AIIMS has been pioneered in giving public health services. Sir, the reason of my mentioning all these things is that these are for the common people and cricket has also become a game for the common people. So, in that direction, I would like to compliment the Minister but when he was giving the reasons, the history and the background, I thought, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity also to mention that this is a wake up call for the Government. I am not against the private sector but this is what the private sector can do. They can blackmail at the last minute the way the hon. Minister mentioned about the West Indies game. I am very glad that he has taken the right step. But, at the same time, I have always believed that a private monopoly is worse than a public monopoly because a public monopoly is accountable, at least, to the people and to this hon. Parliament but a private monopoly is accountable only to money and nothing else. So, again, I want to compliment the hon. Minister for bringing forward this Bill at the right time. Normally, I do not support the Ordinances but this is one such, which I have no hesitation to support.

Sir, I will not take much time of the House. Sir, India is considered to be a country, which has unity in diversity in many areas. Cricket is one such example, where irrespective of caste, creed, religion, colour of the skin, who comes from which region, and, without reservation, players come and play. Cricket is one such game, which unites this country, and, rightly so, the common man on the street has a right to know as to what is happening in the game.

Sir, today, if you see the composition of the team itself, you have people who are coming from such a humble background where the parents have hardly means to train the boys and lot of these boys, these youngsters, these talented people have got inspiration out of watching the game purely on Doordarshan, and, I won't be wrong if I say that they perhaps would not even have the means or the money to go and buy a ticket and watch the game.

So, from that angle also, Sir, I would like to compliment the Minister. Yes, we have the right to give this game to the common households where the boys are encouraged to participate so that finally we see them not only shining for themselves but truly making India proud.

Sir, I understand from the hon. Minister, and he has mentioned it, that 70 per cent of the revenue comes from India and the Indian viewership. Sir, I would like to know what is the share, how much the country gets. I have no problem BCCI becoming rich. I have no problem at all. Whenever a game of cricket takes place, for the bandobast -- whether it is stadium, whether it is in terms of physical assets, whether it is security, whether it is police, whether it is traffic -- lot of money is being earned and I have no problem. But if the country is giving the support, I think, the BCCI must share their profitability with the Government. I am sure they must be sharing but the proportion has to go up manifolds, and, I tell you why, Sir. (Contd. by YSR-2J)

-GSP/YSR/1.40/2J

SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI (CONTD.): Today, we have villages where there is no drinking water. We have villages where there are no facilities for health or education. People are also not getting two square meals. Game of cricket cannot fulfil the entire thing but, at least, it will be a drop in the ocean. So, my humble submission to the hon. Minister would be also that some sharing of this entire revenue of the BCCI, the lion's share must come to the exchequer and that money should be spent for the needy and the poor. I have two points, Sir. I know that I have to conclude.

Sir, we have talked about pay channels. Sir, today, pay channels have become very complicated. I totally agree with my friend, Digvijay Singhji. I also do not understand what comes on which pay channel. I think somewhere it should be made very simple that if you want to watch Doordarshan or some Government channel, you just do not need anything, whether it is a Set-Top Box or whatever it is. I think something needs to be done. Otherwise, as he said, we are giving rights but the people will not get the signal. Again, they will have to go through same complicated process.

Having said that, Sir, I know that I do not have much time, but, again, I would like to compliment the Government, especially the hon. Minister, and I wholeheartedly support this Bill. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Shri Sharad Anantrao Joshi. Please remember the time constraint.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: Sir, what is the time given to me?

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: You can take five or six minutes.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI (MAHARASHTRA): Sir, as a cricketer and a cricket player of the R.G. Nadkarni and Nari Contractor vintage, I should welcome this Bill because that would give the opportunity to spectators and those interested in the game of cricket even in the distant villages. If that was so, I would only be complimenting the Minister and welcoming the Bill.

In fact, however, Sir, I stand to formally oppose this Bill on my personal behalf and on behalf of the Swatantra Bharat Party, which is the only liberal party in the country. This is a knee-jerk reaction which came firstly in the form of a notification and now being put in the form of a Bill. The immediate provocation was, of course, the desire of the people to be able to see cricket matches, particularly those played outside India. But there are going to be some long-term consequences.

The first consequence is going to be that the myth of the autonomy of Prasar Bharati is broken. Prasar Bharati is now clearly seen as an arm of the Government. If this is how the Prasar Bharati is going to grow, then, the dream that one day Prasar Bharati will be autonomous in the same way as the British Broadcasting Corporation, would be frustrated. There are absolutely no hopes of survival.

Secondly, Sir, the most important point is that a company or a channel or a content owner has acquired the rights of broadcasting or telecasting in a particular normal contractual way. There was a time when after the emergency, we put the word 'socialism' in the Preamble of the Constitution. The Supreme Court judgement used to say that in view of the fact that socialism is the tenet in the Constitution, we interpret the law in a particular way.

Sir, recently, in a case, the Supreme Court decided that any officer who was suspended would not necessarily get the arrears of pay, etc. The Supreme Court has said since the market economy is the basis of our economic policy, we give a judgement of this type.

Now, nowhere 'socialism' is the basic tenet, even though it continues to be in the Preamble. Therefore, anybody who has acquired the rights to telecast in a proper manner, to expropriate it by a mere fiat of a notification or a law is an encroachment on the rights of private property. Firstly, this is arbitrary. What is of 'national importance' is very difficult to say. You would say that the cricket matches of the World Cup are of national importance. But then why didn't you think of it when we were playing kabaddi matches in Doha and coming on the top? (Contd. by VKK/2K)

-YSR/VKK/2k/1.45

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI (CONTD.): We had only fifteen-minute coverage of the Kabaddi matches in Doha Games in the evening. We did not think of providing live coverage of those matches. So, there is a certain slant in this Bill. The Government, at any point of time, can say that this is of national importance. The representatives of the Bollywood are not here, but, I am afraid if the Government turns to say that there is something of national importance even in fields other than sports and the rights can be acquired by Prasar Bharti, then, I would say that this Bill would provide the thin end of the wedge. Nimbus is already in the court and we are passing this Bill. This Bill is not going to be approved by the Supreme Court. I can tell you that. You will come back again with an amendment to the Constitution because this kind of an encroachment on the private property is unlikely to be accepted by the courts. And if the amendment itself is rejected, the Minister will say that we will have to revise the Ninth Schedule. This is exactly the manner that was followed when we abrogated property rights, and, I am afraid, this is going to be the procedure that will be followed here. And, therefore, this is a thin end of the wedge. It was open to Prasar Bharti to go and negotiate with Nimbus, to find out what would be a commercially and economically viable contracting way.

Sir, one more point is, if we wanted this kind of an authority, the correct thing to do was what France did. Sir, France introduced colour televisions eight years after the United States because France wanted a system of television telecasting which would not be on American system. Therefore, they have an entirely different system which uses a different number of cross lines. If you wanted that your telecasting should be a national priority, then, you should not have easily borrowed the technology from the Americans. You should have developed your own technology.

Lastly, Sir, precisely when every Member in the House is talking about the rights of the farmers against SEZs, if we say that farmers' rights are important but the intellectual property rights and other rights are not important, I think, we are accepting a very wrong precedent. Sir, since I oppose it formally, I would say, when it comes to vote, I will ask for division and vote against. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Thank you. Now, Mr. K.P.K. Kumaran.

SHRI K.P.K. KUMARAN (TAMIL NADU): Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chairman. Sir, I support this Bill. The signals of sports events of national importance must be made available to all citizens, especially common people living in rural areas. Sir, more the sports is broadcast, it would be better for the youth who would take up sports and games, and they will have less time and inclination for anti-social activities. So, I support this Bill. I have one question. The money earned by sportspersons directly arises out of TV coverage. So, the ad revenue earned by these broadcasts has a direct bearing on the money earned by sportspersons. As the Minister says, because of Doordarshan coverage, overall commerce is growing, then, that is fine. But, these measures must ensure that the overall commerce does not come down because of the measures taken in this Bill.

Sir, I will also record my objection to the statement of the hon. Member from AIADMK Party. He made a hypothetical assumption and based on that assumption, he made an unwarranted statement casting aspersions on the integrity of the Government...(Interruptions)...

SHRI N. JOTHI: You cannot say what I should speak. (Interruptions) You have no right...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): You can put forward your views. (Interruptions) Please, please...(Interruptions)...

SHRI K.P.K. KUMARAN: This House is not the forum for making such hypothetical statements. (Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: You continue your speech. (Interruptions)

SHRI N. JOTHI: It is not hypothetical. It is a matter of fact. I am telling you...(Interruptions)....

SHRI K.P.K. KUMARAN: Kindly appreciate the Minister's statement, saying that the money earned out of the cricket broadcast is going to be used for the telecast of other sports and games. (Contd. by RSS/2L)

RSS/2l/1.50/

SHRI K.P.K. KUMARAN (CONTD.): This is the only way that we can bring up the other disciplines, Sir. Thank you. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Now, the Minister.

THE MINISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND MINISTER OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING (SHRI PRIYARANJAN DASMUNSI):

Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, first of all, I sincerely congratulate all the distinguished Members who took part in this debate. Before I begin the merit of the debate and give my response, I would like to state that the Government and this House together, we wish a great success of the Indian team in West Indies and hope that our team would come back victorious. Sir, if you see the text of the Bill and the title of the Bill, you will find that it is not a cricket-specific Bill. The Bill is not named as cricket mandatory sharing. Incidentally, the word cricket has come, that is a different issue. But the Bill is titled as The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Bill, 2007. Sir, my distinguished friend and colleague, an eminent lawyer Jothiji, began the debate on the technical flaws of the law, as he understood, and felt that the UPA Government is trying to embarrass someone. I do not know why Jothiji always suffers for his own political problem. I am also head of a sports body and I tell you honestly that my Executive Committee has opposed me. But I cannot forget that I took an oath under the Constitution before the Rashtrapati before joining the Government not to encourage the conflict of interest, but to defend the interest of the public, come what may. If you feel that individually, some sports body is not happy, its all right. Next to cricket in the country, the sports which can get some money is football, and I am proud to say that since my boyhood, I have been watching and playing football. I grew in football and would like to die in football. That is my passion. There is no question of politics or winning the election or not. It is something different. It is some dedication, some common sense. Sir, is India doing something extraordinary? Is the Government doing something extraordinary? I would like to inform Jothiji that I am not a competent lawyer like him. I respect your legal acumen, I respect the legal acumen of Shri Arun Jaitley. Sometimes, some of your arguments educate me. I must admit this. But I would like to say with all humility at my command that this Government is not at all interfering in the internal matters of any sports body. We uphold the autonomy of the sports body. The Government should not interfere with the sports autonomy of any sports body, the Government cannot do so, and the Government in future should not interfere with the sports autonomy of any sports body, whether it is cricket, kabaddi or any other sport. That is a different issue. Sir, I take only one thing. I will not read out all. This is not the time to do so. I respect the BCCI, its President, and all the colleagues. How respectful they are to the country and me also! They, in their own declaration about the rights distribution, have said, and I quote. "The exercise and enjoyment of the media right is subject to the broadcaster guidelines, which were issued in 2005. The branding guidelines and all applicable laws of the relevant territory, including, without limitation, the local laws relating to the television and radio coverage of designated events of major important events in society, if any." I respect it. They accepted it. They honoured it. They embraced it. Everyone respects the law of the land, and then accommodate how it is fitted. Sir, I take now the liberty to inform you about the relevant part of the law of Australia. The Australian law is much more stringent. There, they have made it clear that not only the first option of entire coverage to be given to their own terrestrial net.... (contd. by 2m)

MKS/AKA/1.55/2M

SHRI PRIYARANJAN DASMUNSI (CONTD.): They call it SKS or ABS. The name is here.

"The Minister shall decide which event. And the law is passed by

the Parliament."

Similarly in U.K. You cannot just agree or arrange any kind of agreement for a full coverage or part coverage without giving the total domain of the public view. Of course, there is a provision of nominal fees. 'Nominal'. I am using the word 'nominal'. I am not doing something hara-kiri. I am not doing something against sports body. I am quite aware of the sports; sports bodies have to get their money by their sponsors, have to get their money by television. That is the only earning channel. But I begin with a recently concluded sports channel 'Neo Sports'. Some Members have got it right. What is the statement? Have you gone through the statement, published in the Economic Times and the Business Standard. They say: "Before the terrestrial platform was opened, the revenue was less than what we expected. The moment it was opened, we got new clients. Because of 110 million homes, it jumped up to 32.5 crores!" They admitted it. Therefore, every business house wants, "My brand, my product, my campaign should have the larger viewers." And that is why, we have said in the clause that the sharing formula should not be with your advertisement; you take it. In addition to that, if you want to earn more revenue, you do it. If we do it, we do it. But take that Rs.75/-. What wrong have we done? I do not understand what wrong we have done. Sharadji says ' grabbing private property'. We are not grabbing private property. What property are we grabbing? Doordarshan is losing. Sir, Doordarshan is losing. When you bundle the right with the terrestrial right and sell it,

how do you, without the consent of the Prasar Bharati, do it? British law says 'with the consent'. Austrian law says 'prior consent'. You said it. We did not bring it because we believe in sports certainly. The question is why the laws are not brought earlier. Because we believe in these sports certainly. We believe in the negotiating mechanism as a sports-friendly atmosphere. That is why the guideline was imposed. You said it; Jothiji said it. Well, I do not claim any legal acumen though I studied law and practised in Calcutta High Court for a certain period.

SHRI N. JOTHI: We were together.

SHRI PRIYARANJAN DASMUNSI: But I just tell you, yes, I am fortunate to have been taught by Sabyasachi Mukherjee and Chittodas Mukherjee. All have become eminent Chief Justices and Justices of various courts. Sir, at the heart of hearts, I always feel that the sports body which is to carry the bills of everybody has to take the players bill, conduct bill, programme bill, promotion bill, training bill, coaching bill; no Government will pay for that. And they need sponsors' support; they need television support. At no point of time, our mind is open; otherwise I would have passed this, having seen by the Cabinet, and come back. There is a purpose behind this. When the Cabinet gave a direction, let a technical committee be constituted, and the committee should deliver how the encryption mechanism could be worked out, how the DTH mechanism could be worked out, and we shall come out with a decision. My mind is open; Government's mind is open. We do not have a closed mind. Come and catch hold of something; embarrass someone. Those things are with you. I know you mean something. If any friend has helped me, if any friend in the Cabinet has helped me, to respond to the public interest, it was my colleague Sharad Pawarji in the Cabinet. Therefore, don't be under the impression that there is politics, Mr. Jothi. That is why my distinguished predecessor, Ravi Shankar Prasadji spoke at length. Many of the things I share with you. Yes, we do not have a regulator now. Why? The comprehensive Broadcasting Bill which was attempted in 1997, which was attempted by Sushmaji, got foiled because of collapse of Parliament, dissolution of Lok Sabha and holding of elections. (Contd. by TMV/2N)

 

PREVIOUS HOUR
MAIN
NEXT HOUR