Media exposed: Claims on British firm false

A day of media-frenzy over the hiring of a 'fake', "little known" UK contractor for covering the commonwealth games in the Rs 246 crore broadcasting contract, the whole thing ended with a whimper as the firm in question turning out to be no rookie.

Though the CVC has asked the CBI to find out if there is any criminality, it became clear that the media expose (not DNA) was half-baked and without any substance.

It was alleged that   a "little-known UK-based company" that was formed "only for the purpose", with hardly any antecedents. The expose also alleged that BS Lalli, the chief executive of the state-broadcaster Prasar Bharti, also showed undue favors to the firm by pushing for prompt clearance of bills.

According to the British firm, CWG was certainly not the first big sporting event it has covered. Indeed, the firm, which calls itself "Europe’s largest outside broadcast and uplink provider," has under its belt coverage of events like the Wimbledon Championships of 2009, Formula 1 racing, the London Marathon and the European Tour (ETP) golf tournament of 2008.

While refusing to comment on the allegations that it was formed "only in January 2010," an official with the firm pointed to its website - replete with references to prestigious events it had covered in the past.

Indeed, according to the firm's website, it is the British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC's) official coverage partner for events such as Wimbledon.

Contrary to claims that SIS Live had come into existence solely for the CWG coverage, Income Tax department papers allege that the company had set up an Indian unit only this year. Survey operations on the Indian arm of the British company were conducted by the IT department whose assessing officers found alleged discrepancies in the financial documents of the firm. It was allegedly trying to evade service tax to the tune of Rs 29 crore.

In an order similar to the Vodafone case, the IT department had asked Doordarshan to cut taxes from the amount due to the British firm.

"I am surprised that people can follow false-hood to such an extent," Lalli told DNA, when asked about the episode. Lalli pointed out that the issue of tax payment by people who were providing a service to Doordarshan was a matter between the vendor and the Income Tax department.

"It is not for us to interfere in the matter of the service tax because that is between the entity and the service tax department. Anyway, I also know that the company has made part-payment of its service tax obligations," he added.

Other allegations, including the 'outsourcing' of coverage contract by the British firm to another Indian firm, too turned out to be less than true. Industry sources who witnessed the coverage pointed out that most of the technicians and cameramen were foreigners and while Indian firms were used for minor
activities such as arranging logistics.

Lalli, who rubbished the allegations, pointed out that the contract between Doordarshan and SIS Live specifically set limits on what activities may be sub-contracted by the London firm. He also dispelled notions that he had pusheden through the contract on his own and pointed out that the award was cleared at the level of the minister for Information and Broadcasting. Indeed, the I&B ministry -- which oversaw the tendering process -- had even sent a letter to the then chief vigilance commissioner Pratyush Sinha detailing the tendering process to prevent future controversies.

Lalli pointed out that the entire tendering process was done according to a set bidding process, under the supervision of the Information and Broadcasting ministry. SIS beat 10 others to win the contract, with a bid of Rs 246 crore for coverage.

"Because the commonwealth games project was a committed plan project,
this had to go to the ministry for approval. Anything which is a plan scheme, beyond Rs 20 crore, has to be approved by the ministry," Lalli, who is known to have a running feud with information and broadcasting minister Ambika Soni, said.

The decision to outsource the coverage of commonwealth games by Doordarshan had come under criticism, both from within the state broadcaster, as well as from outside. Critics pointed out that coverage, which cost the country nearly Rs 360 crore, resulted in no long term benefits to Doordarshan, unlike the Asian Games which heralded the colour-TV era.

Meanwhile, some of the officials associated with the games saw the controversy as just another case of 'sour grapes' by media houses that
had failed to secure the lucrative 'official games partner' contract.