2005 (2) TMI 773 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (Board) which is a cricket controlling authority in terms of the ICC Rules answers the description of Other Authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? Held that - If Cricket Association of Bengal was considered to be a pure private body where was the occasion for this Court to say that 'if it fails to explore the most profitable avenue of telecasting the event whereby it would achieve the object of promoting and popularizing the sport, it may be accused of negligence and may be attributed improper motives?' Applying the tests laid down hereinbefore to the facts of the present case, the Board, in our considered opinion, said description. It discharges a public function. It has its duties towards the public. The public at large will look forward to the Board for selection of the best team to represent the country. It must manage its housekeeping in such a manner so as to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of millions. It has, thus, a duty to act fairly. It cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously. Public interest is, thus, involved in the activities of the Board. It is, thus, a State actor. We, therefore, are of the opinion that law requires to be expanded in this field and it must be held that the Board answers the description of Other Authorities as contained in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and satisfies the requisite legal tests, as noticed hereinbefore. It would, therefore, be a 'State'. The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. It is ordered accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is considered a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
2. The maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
3. The nature of functions performed by BCCI and whether they qualify as public functions.
4. The implications of recognizing BCCI as a "State" on its operations and autonomy.
5. The relevance of international and comparative law in determining the status of BCCI.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is considered a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India:

The judgment primarily addresses whether BCCI qualifies as "Other Authorities" under Article 12, making it subject to constitutional scrutiny. The court examined BCCI's functions, concluding that it performs public duties, such as selecting the national team, regulating cricket in India, and representing India in international forums. BCCI's monopoly over cricket, its significant influence on public life, and its de facto recognition by the Union of India were pivotal in determining its status as a "State."

2. The maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India:

The court held that the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It emphasized that judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 extends to bodies performing public functions or duties, even if they are not statutory authorities. BCCI's public functions, such as regulating cricket and representing India internationally, justify the invocation of Article 32 for enforcing fundamental rights.

3. The nature of functions performed by BCCI and whether they qualify as public functions:

The court analyzed BCCI's activities, including organizing domestic and international cricket tournaments, selecting national teams, and controlling player participation. These functions were deemed public in nature as they affect the fundamental rights of players and the public. The court noted that BCCI's actions, such as banning players or selecting teams, have significant public implications, thereby qualifying as public functions.

4. The implications of recognizing BCCI as a "State" on its operations and autonomy:

The court addressed concerns about the potential impact of recognizing BCCI as a "State." It clarified that not all actions of BCCI would be subject to judicial review, only those involving public law elements. The judgment emphasized that BCCI's autonomy in day-to-day operations would largely remain unaffected, but it must adhere to constitutional principles in matters affecting public rights and interests.

5. The relevance of international and comparative law in determining the status of BCCI:

The judgment referenced international and comparative law, including decisions from the UK, USA, and other jurisdictions, to support its reasoning. The court noted that bodies performing public functions, even if privately constituted, are subject to judicial review in many jurisdictions. The analysis of foreign case law reinforced the conclusion that BCCI's public functions necessitate its classification as a "State" under Article 12.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that BCCI is a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India due to its public functions and significant influence on cricket and public life. The writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable, and BCCI must adhere to constitutional principles in its operations affecting public rights. The judgment balances BCCI's autonomy with the need for constitutional accountability in its public functions.

← Previous Next →