1998 JTR(SC) 890
2000 10 SCC 606 ; 2000 KHC 4373
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : S.Saghir Ahmad
Prime Channel
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 16833 of 1996
Date of Decision : 8/28/98
Advocates Appeared: Aggarwal S.P. : Aggarwal Sandeep : Aggarwal Suruchi : Bhatt N.N. : Dwivedi S.K. : Karanjawala Manik : Malik Yunus : Qadri S.W.A. : Salve Harish N. : Sharma Reena : Singh Lakshmi Raman : Singh Maninder : Singh Vikas : Thakur D.D.
The court held that it is not the role of the judiciary to determine specific time slots or days for the broadcasting of television programs, leaving such administrative decisions to the broadcasting authority.
(A) Administrative Discretion - Broadcasting Slots - Determination of time slots for television programs - It is not for the Court to decide as to which day should be allotted to one serial or the other - The decision regarding the allotment of slots for extended episodes is left to the broadcasting authority, as they are in a better position to take into account a variety of factors. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An application was filed by a production house requesting that the time slot currently allotted to them for a serial be continued for extended episodes. This request was opposed by another party. The applicant further contended that the specific day requested was auspicious for worshippers of a particular deity, while the opposing party cited other considerations for their own serial to be screened on that day.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the broadcasting authority is better equipped to handle the allotment of slots and days by considering various operational factors and may explore possibilities such as alternate-day allotments.
Issues: Whether the court should intervene to determine the specific day and time slot for the broadcasting of television serial episodes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is not the function of the judiciary to manage the scheduling of television programs, as such decisions fall within the administrative domain of the broadcasting authority, which is better positioned to evaluate the relevant factors.
Result: Application disposed of.
Facts of the case:
An application was filed by a production house requesting that the time slot currently allotted to them for a serial be continued for extended episodes. This request was opposed by another party. The applicant further contended that the specific day requested was auspicious for worshippers of a particular deity, while the opposing party cited other considerations for their own serial to be screened on that day.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the broadcasting authority is better equipped to handle the allotment of slots and days by considering various operational factors and may explore possibilities such as alternate-day allotments.
Issues: Whether the court should intervene to determine the specific day and time slot for the broadcasting of television serial episodes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is not the function of the judiciary to manage the scheduling of television programs, as such decisions fall within the administrative domain of the broadcasting authority, which is better positioned to evaluate the relevant factors.
Result: Application disposed of.
(1) IN this application by M/s Namah Shivay Enterprises, the prayer is that the slot allotted to them at present, i.e. 9.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on every Monday must continue to be allotted for the extended episodes also, as Doordarshan agreed to have the extension of the serial for another 56 episodes more. This is seriously opposed by the original appellant Prime Channel, on the ground that they were asked to wait till the completion of the initially agreed 91 episodes. As for the intervenor, the contention is that, Monday being an auspicious day for Shiva worshippers, it would be more appropriate that the extended episodes are screened on Monday and not on Tuesday. On the other hand, it is represented on behalf of the original appellant that there are many other considerations for their serial to be screened on Monday itself.
(2) WE do not think that it is for the Court to decide as to which day should be allotted to one serial or the other. We leave it to Doordarshan to fix up the day or the slot regarding the extended episodes for M/s Namah Shivay Enterprises in consideration of a variety of factors which they are in a better position to take into account. They can also explore the possibility whether other times can be allotted, if not on all Mondays, at least on alternate Mondays. This is only a suggestion and it is for Doordarshan to take a final decision. With these observations we dispose of this application.