The Secretary, Ministry Of ... vs Cricket Association Of Bengal & ... on 9 February, 1995 the years, affording great weight to the decisions of Congress and the experience of the Federal Communications Commission, and [2] under the Federal Communications Act and the Commission's "fairness doctrine," broadcast licensees had broad journalistic discretion in the area of discussion of public issues. It was also held, expressing the views of five members of the court [Part IV of the opinion], that [3] neither the public interest standards of the Federal Communications Act nor the First Amendment, assuming that there was governmental action for First Amendment purposes, required broadcasters to accept editorial advertisements, notwithstanding that they accepted commercial advertisements, and [4] the Commission was justified in concluding that the public interest would not be served by a system affording a right of access to broadcasting facilities for paid editorial advertisements, since such a system would be heavily weighted in favor of the financially affluent, :would jeopardize effective operation of the Commission's "fairness doctrine", and would increase government involvement in broadcasting by requiring the Commission's daily supervision of broad- casters' activities...... a broadcaster's re- fusal to accept any editorial advertisements was not governmental action for purposes of the First Amendment, since private broadcasters, even though licensed and regulated to some extent by the government, were not instrumentalities or "partners" of the government for First Amendment purposes, and since the Commission, in declining to reject the broadcasters' policies against accepting editorial -advertisements, had not fostered or required such policy". 30.It may be mentioned here that unlike in this country, in United States, the private individuals and institutions are given licences to have their own broadcasting stations and hence the right of the private broadcasters against the right of others who did not own the broadcasting stations but asserted their right of free speech and expression were pitted against each other in this case and the decision has mainly turned upon the said balancing of rights of both under the First Amendment. It was in substance held that any direction to the private broadcasters by the Government to sell advertising time to speak out on public issues violated the protection given by the First Amendment to the private broadcasters against Government control. 31.In Federal Communications Commission et al. v. WNCN Listeners Guild et al. [450 Us 582 : 67 L Ed 2d 521], a number of citizen groups interested in fostering and preserving particular entertainment formats petitioned for review of the Policy Statement of Federal Communications Commission [FCC] in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court held that the Policy Statement was contrary to the Communications Act of 1934. The US Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals by majority, holding, inter alia, that the Policy Statement was not inconsistent with the Communications Act since the FCC provided a rational explanation for its conclusion that reliance on the market was the best method of promoting diversity in entertainment formats and that the FCC's judgment regarding how the public interest is best served was entitled to substantial judicial deference and its implementation of the public interest standard, when based on a rational weighing of competing policies was not to be set aside. Marshall and Brennan, JJ., however, held that in certain limited circumstances, the FCC may be obliged to hold a hearing to consider whether a proposed change in a licensee's entertainment Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/539407/ 19