The Judgement: Re-Forming the "Public" number of technological as well as aesthetic areas, around modes of mdress, around the manufacture of the 'addressee' of so-called public policy, and around the cultural attributions made to the transmission systems that have been, and will be, set in place as the instruments placed at the service of this public. If so, the Supreme Court judgement could well be as 134 landmark as claimed but in a slightly different direction than most debates have emphasised. And it may well make sense that a new category of citizenship - the citizen-as-consumer - be politically instituted not so much via democracy politics but via electronic broadcast media as exemplar of such politics. Let me start with quoting the judgement, in its key paragraphs: monopoly over broadcasting, whether by government or by anybody else, is inconsistent with the free speech-right of citizens. Elsewhere State control really means governmental control, which, in turn, means control of the political party or parties in power for the time being. Such control is bound to colour the views, information and opinions conveyed by the media. And then, the operative, and much reproduced statement: The Broadcasting media should be under the control of the public as distinct from the government... It should be operated by a public statutory corporation or corporations, as the case may be, whose constitution and composition must be such as to ensure its/ their impartiality in political, economic and social matters and on all other public issues. It/they must be required by law to present news, views and opinions in a balanced way, ensuring pluralism and diversity of opinions and views. It/they must provide equal access to all the citizens and groups to avail of this medium.6 As mentioned, this judgement was welcomed by almost everyone across the political spectrum. However, through last year, as debate grew around how to translate that judgement into a Parliamentary act, both concepts - 'State control' and 'public' - were mobilised to mean very different things to different commentators. On the one hand, the pro-Left constitutional authority and columnist Rajeev Dhawan for instance, while welcoming the judgement, clearly set down what he understood by these categories: If regulation is not an invitation to censorship and control, commercialisation of TV is not a substitute for democracy. Selling space or channels to TV companies and regulating what they do do not quite meet the Supreme Court's declaration that the 'air waves arc public property'. Institutionally this means that control must be with a truly independent body, with government intervention limited to extreme situations of national necessity. Juristically this distinction gets back to shastric notions that all property (other than that which is privately owned'or specifically delineated for some purpose) Journal of Arts <& Ideas