52 S.C. 128\02 and commercial advertising, which would undermine the principles of fairness, infringe the public right to information and deprive certain broadcasters of sponsorship income was legally unacceptable …” (underlining is mine) The Court was of the view that section 3 of the Sri Lankan Bill did not provide for such an independent regulating authority and concluded:- “Having regard to the composition of the Board of Directors of the Authority, the lack of security of tenure in office either of the Chairman or the appointed members and having regard to the power of the Minister to give direction which the Authority is obliged to follow, the Authority lacks the independence required of a body entrusted with the regulation of the electronic media, which, it is acknowledged on all hands, is the most potent means of influencing thought.” Section 3 of the Bill identified the appointees to the regulating authority through their offices and these were government officials subject to government control, therefore, incapable of being independent of government. Section 4 of the Act merely creates the regulating authority and identifies the Minister as the person who appoints members of the authority. Someone has to make the appointments to the authority. Section 4 does not identify who should be appointed to the authority. It merely provides for the number of appointees and who makes the appointment. The persons to be appointed are not identified in such a manner as to leave the Minister without choice but to appoint people dependant on the government as was the case in Athukorale’s case, supra. Athukorale’s case, supra, is certainly distinguishable from this case. The provisions of section 3 of the Sri Lankan Bill are very different from section 4 of the Act.