9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition against BCCI under Article 226. 2. Whether BCCI performs public functions or duties. 3. The implications of BCCI being amenable to writ jurisdiction. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the writ petition against BCCI under Article 226: The primary contention was whether the BCCI is amenable to the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners argued that BCCI and DDCA, being monopolies recognized by the government, perform state functions and should be held accountable. The BCCI objected, claiming it was not subject to writ jurisdiction. The court examined previous judgments, including the Ajay Jadeja case, and clarified that the Division Bench did not address the merits of the maintainability issue but only vacated the Single Judge's order due to the case being referred to arbitration. Therefore, the court concluded that the argument that the Division Bench decision binds this bench is misplaced. 2. Whether BCCI performs public functions or duties: The court considered whether BCCI, though a private entity, performs public functions or duties. BCCI's extensive control over cricket in India, including organizing matches, selecting teams, and regulating the sport, was highlighted. The court noted that BCCI's actions affect the public at large, as cricket is a significant public interest in India. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, which held that any body performing public duty is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court concluded that BCCI's functions, such as selecting the national team and organizing international matches, are public functions. 3. The implications of BCCI being amenable to writ jurisdiction: The court addressed concerns about potential consequences of subjecting BCCI to writ jurisdiction. It clarified that not every action of BCCI would be subject to judicial review, only those involving public law elements. The court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 is concerned with the lawfulness of the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The court dismissed fears that BCCI's independence would be compromised, stating that judicial review does not equate to governmental intervention. The court reiterated that the "function" test is crucial in determining maintainability, focusing on whether a public duty or function is involved. Conclusion: The court held that the writ petition against BCCI is maintainable under Article 226, as BCCI performs public functions and duties. The petition cannot be dismissed on the maintainability issue, and the merits of the case will be examined separately. The judgment underscores the broader applicability of Article 226 to any body performing public duties, irrespective of its private or public status.
|
