Delhi HC says two minutes sufficient to commercially exploit broadcasting rights in cricket matches Sai Krishna represents Star India against Idea Cellular Cricbuzz and OnMobile

In a judgment likely to have far-reaching implications, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a suit filed by Star India which had sought a restriction on the broadcast of any information emanating from the broadcast of a cricket match. It was Star India’s contention that cricket updates made via SMS (by the likes of Defendant Idea Cellular) or through the internet (by Defendant Piyush Agarawl of Cricbuzz) were in violation of the exclusive rights granted to Star India by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

In a judgment likely to have far-reaching implications, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a suit filed by Star India which had sought a restriction on the broadcast of any information emanating from the broadcast of a cricket match. It was Star India’s contention that cricket updates made via SMS (by the likes of Defendant Idea Cellular) or through the internet (by Defendant Piyush Agarawl of Cricbuzz) were in violation of the exclusive rights granted to Star India by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

Star India had filed the suit claiming that “any and every information” relating to the cricket matches including the right to send cricket updates via SMS belonged exclusively to Star India through the broadcasting agreement entered into between Star India and the BCCI. Disagreeing with the contentions raised by the Plaintiff, Justice Valmiki Mehta held that the contract entered into between Star India and the BCCI did not prevent the Defendants from transmitting cricket updates provided that the same took place two minutes after the live broadcast.

In Para 25 (i) of the judgment, the Court has observed:

The Judge held that after the period of two minutes, the information entered the public domain and hence could be disseminated by any individual. The Court further held that with respect to “momentary events” such as a wicket, such news would fall in the public domain immediately.

Explaining the rationale behind the time period of two minutes, the Court in Para 25 (iv) of the judgment, opined:

Speaking to Bar & Bench, Sai Krishna of Sai Krishna Associates said that Star India is challenging this decision. “We have preferred and are optimistic of a reversal of verdict in appeal”, he said.

The Plaintiffs were represented by Senior Advocates Gopal Subramaniun and Maninder Singh on instructions from Sai Krishna Associates. Luthra and Luthra were representing Piyush Agarwal and Idea Cellular while JNA Law represented OnMobile. Counsels for the Defendants included Senior Advocates, Sudhir Chandra, Abhinav Vashisht, Rajiv Nayar and Mukul Rohatgi.

Star India v Piyush Agarwal and Ors