BCCI is not State within the meaning of Article 12

ZeeTelefilms Ltd vs. Union of India (2005)
Magna Carta of Indian Sports Law.

BCCI is not State within the meaning of Article 12.

• Bench - N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema, S.B. Sinha and S.N. Variava, JJ.
• Citation: AIR2005SC2677

Facts:

Zee Telefilms had bid for telecast rights for certain tournaments which had been cancelled by BCCI. Against this, Zee Telefilms filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the Board being recognized by the Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports could be considered to be 'other authority' for purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore capable of coming under Article 32/226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue:

Whether Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) is state for purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India?

Arguments by the Appellant:

1. It was submitted on behalf of Zee that the Board controls the rights of a citizen by its rules and regulations and since such aregulation can be done only by the State the Board of necessity must beregarded as an instrumentality of the State.
2. Cricketers have a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) to pursue their professional career as a cricketer. Memorandum of Association and the rules and regulations and due to its monopolistic control over the game of Cricket the Board has all pervasive powers to control a person's cricketing career.

Observations made by Court:

1. The Board is not created by a statute.
2. The Government holds no part of the share capital of the Board.
3. Practically no financial assistance is given by the Government to meet thewhole or entire expenditure of the Board.
4. The Board does enjoy a monopoly status in the field of cricket, but such status is not State conferred, or State protected.
5. There is no existence of a deep and pervasive State control. The control if anyis only regulatory in nature as applicable to other similar bodies. This controlis not specifically exercised under any special statute applicable to the Board.All functionsof the Board are neither public function nor are they closelyrelated to governmental functions.
6. The Board is not created by transfer of a Government owned corporation. Itis an autonomous body.
7. The facts established do not cumulatively show that the Board is financially,functionally or administratively dominated or is under the control of the Government. Thus, the little control that the Government may be said to haveon the Board is not pervasive in nature. Such limited control is purelyregulatory control and nothing more.

Judgment:

1. To argue that every entity, which validly or invalidly arrogates to itself theright to regulate or for that matter even starts regulating the fundamental rightof the citizen under Article 19(1) (g), is a State within the meaning of Article12 is to put the cart before the horse. If such logic were to be applied everyemployer who regulates the manner in which his employee works would alsohave to be treated as State.
2. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, then the petitioner will have to first establish that the Board is a State under Article12 and it is violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner. In this petition under Article 32 we have already held that the petitioner has failed to establishthat the Board is State within the meaning of Article 12.
3. In the absence of any authorization, if a private body chooses to discharge anysuch function that is not prohibited by law then it would be incorrect to holdthat such action of the body would make it an instrumentality of the State. The Union of India has tried to make out a case that the Board discharges these functions because of the de facto recognition granted by it to the Boardunder the guidelines framed by it but the Board has denied the same. In thisregard we must hold that the Union of India has failed to prove that there isany recognition by the Union of India under the guidelines framed by it andthat the Board is discharging these functions on its own as an autonomousbody.
4. It cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties that can be saidto be akin to public duties or State functions and if there is any violationof any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, theaggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a petition under Article 32.
5. But that does not mean that the violator of such right would go scot-freemerely because it or he is not a State. Though the remedy under Article 32 isnot available, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinarycourse of law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of theConstitution, which is much wider than Article 32.