19 S.C. 128\02 “Scarcity is not entirely a thing of the past, and therefore states have a continuing and compelling need to regulate the use of the frequency spectrum. The US Senate said that ‘broadcast frequencies are limited and, therefore, they have been necessarily considered a public trust.’ (See S Rep No 562, 86th Cong 1st Sess 8-9 (1959) US Code Cong & Adm News p 2571.) That observation was cited with approval by the US Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. The Supreme Court of India too has endorsed the view that airwaves/frequencies are limited and must be regarded as ‘a public property’ with regard to which the State must exercise control so that they will be used for the public good: see Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt of India v Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) AIR (82) 1995 Supreme Court 1236 (esp paras 78, 185, 192, 193, 194). It is recognised that states ‘have the right and the duty to ensure the orderly regulation of communications, and this can only be achieved by a licensing system’ (Groppera Radio AG v Switzerland (A/173) (1990) 12 EHRR 321 at 350, per Berdhardt J). Because of the public property nature of frequencies, licences to broadcast do not confer ownership of designated frequencies, but only the temporary privilege of using them during a specified time: see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. Radio and television, because of their pervasive and wide reach and influence on members of the public, constitute a most important means of mass communication. In order to play its role in advancing freedom of speech, the state, because of the limited availability of frequencies, must endeavour to ensure that the medium continues to be effective. Because of the limited availability of frequencies, chaos would ensue if the spectrum is uncontrolled and the usefulness of radio and television as a means of communication would soon come to an end, with unfortunate consequences for the right to free speech and independent thought. If there is to be effective communication, only a few can be licensed and the rest must be barred from the airwaves. The matter was explained in Red Lion Broadcasting Co 395 US 367 at 387388 in the following words:‘Just as the Government may limit the use of sound-amplifying equipment potentially so noisy that it drowns out civilized private speech, so may the Government limit the use of broadcast equipment. The right of free speech of a broadcaster, the user of a sound track, or any other individual does not embrace a right to snuff out the free speech of others … When two people converse face to face, both should not speak at once if either is to be clearly understood. But the range of the human voice is so limited that there could be meaningful communications if half the people in the United States were talking and the other half listening. Just as clearly, half the people might publish and the other half read. But the reach of radio signals is probably greater than the range of the human voice and the problem of interference is a massive reality. The lack of know-how and equipment may keep many from the air, but only a tiny fraction of those with resources and intelligence can hope to communicate by radio at the same time if intelligible communication is to be had, even