BCCI not a 'State': Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: In what can be termed disappointing news for Zee Telefilms, the Supreme Court today ruled that the Indian cricket board was not a 'State as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and, hence, cannot be sued for alleged violation of fundamental rights.


However, the apex court also suggested that some lower court could take up such cases under Article 226. The three-two split SC ruling is important, as the Indian cricket boards case would have major impact on the autonomy of various sports bodies in the country and their subsequent functioning.

Dismissing the case, the court observed, "The petitioner has failed to establish that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a state body."

Zee's shares fell as much as 4 per cent to Rs 148 as the news fanned out to reach the stock markets. At the end of the day, however, the stock recovered to close on the Bombay Stock Exchange at Rs 154.10 (down 0.8 per cent from yesterday's close) as the company maintained that it will continue its legal battle against the BCCI. Zee's shares have fallen nearly 11 per cent this year.

A five-judge Constitution bench, comprising Justices N Santosh Hegde, SN Variava, BP Singh, HK Sema and SB Sinha gave the landmark ruling, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Zee Telefilms Ltd seeking relief against the Board of Control or Cricket in India (BCCI) for alleged arbitrary cancellation of its bid for telecast rights of Indian cricket till 2007.

The ruling was given by 3:2 majority. While Justices Hegde, Singh and Sema held that the BCCI was not a 'State', Justices Variava and Sinha were of the opinion that the cricket board was a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12.

Zee Telefilms contention had been that the BCCI was a 'State' as it was selecting the Indian team and was given de facto recognition by the Indian government to carry out its functions. The petition had requested the apex court to scrutinise the Boards action of canceling the bid for telecast under writ authority.

According to a Press Trust of India report, Justice Hegde, writing the majority judgement, observed that the government of India had not passed any law authorising the cricket board to select the Indian team and the control exercised by it over the regulating body for cricket, at best, could be termed as regulatory, which was not enough to declare BCCI as a 'State'.

Zee remains optimistic

Meanwhile, Zee Telefilms, Indias largest media and entertainment conglomerate, today "hailed" the decision of the Supreme Court stating that BCCI was performing a public duty under Article 226.

Ashish Kaul, spokesperson for the Essel group, the parent entity of Zee Telefilms, said Zee would be approaching a high court very soon, preferably in Delhi, to pursue the matter.

Zee Telefilms had originally won the cricket rights by bidding the highest amount of $ 260 million on 5 September, 2004 amongst other competitors that included ESPN Star Sports ($ 230 million), Indian pubcaster Prasar Bharati ($ 150 million), Sony Entertainment TV India ($ 140 million) and Dubai-based Ten Sports ($ 115 million).

Subsequently, as a drama unfolded revolving around the bidding process and various aspects of it, including technical criteria, Zee committed another Rs 940 million for the development of domestic cricket. ESS too got into the act and upped the ante with a mind-boggling bid figure of $ 308 million, which Zee subsequently matched to be awarded the rights.

Then ESS, apart from legally challenging the award of the telecast rights by BCCI to Zee, later approached the Supreme Court seeking legal redressal against cancellation of the bidding process by the cricket board.

As the Supreme Court dwelt on a clutch of cricket-related cases, including one involving Prasar Bharati and Ten Sports, Zee was hoping to get a stronger decision in its favour. In a rare interview given in recent times, Zee Tele CMD Subhash Chandra had told that the company would pursue the matter of cricket with zeal and was

confident of winning the case ultimately.

Zee plans to launch a dedicated sports channel in the second quarter of 2005, and India cricket rights would represent a lucrative property to build on.

What does Article 226 mean?

The high courts have a parallel power under Article 226 to enforce the fundamental rights. Article 226 differs from Article 12 and/or 32 in the sense whereas Article 32 can be invoked only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, Article 226 can be invoked not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but for any "other purpose" as well.

This means that the Supreme Courts power under Article 12 and Article 32 is restricted as compared with the power of a High Court under Article 226, for, if an administrative action does not affect a Fundamental Right, then it can be challenged only in the High Court under Article 226, and not in the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Another corollary to this difference is that a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) can be filed in Supreme Court under Article 32 only if a question concerning the enforcement of a fundamental right is involved. Under Article 226, a writ petition can be filed in a high court whether or not a Fundamental Right is involved.

The provision of legal aid is fundamental to promoting access to courts. The Supreme Court of India has taken imaginative measures to promote access to justice when people would otherwise be denied their fundamental rights. It has done this by the twin strategy of loosening the traditional rules of locus standi, and relaxing procedural rules in such cases.

Several sections of the constitution such as Articles 13 (laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights (are void)); Article 14 (Equality before law); Article 20 (Protection in respect of conviction for offenses); Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty); Article 22 (Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases); Article 38

(State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people); and Article 39 (certain principles of policy to be followed by the State) have been interpreted in conjunction with Articles 32 and 226 to extend right of access to courts and judicial redress in various matters.

Latest Reads
Content a 'Game of Thrones'; AT&T's control over HBO, Cartoon Network, Warner Bros faces regulatory lens

The global media landscape is resulting in a new juggernaut as an internet and cable behemoth yesterday purchased an entertainment conglomerate making the former unmatched in its size and reach to consumers through home broadband, smartphones, satellite television and a battery of movies and cable...

Television TV Channels English Entertainment
US$ 4.5 bn expected from IPL rights; SC recommends accounts scrutiny

The Supreme Court on Friday froze all financial transactions between the BCCI and state cricket associations by directing the apex body not to disburse any funds till it resolves to abide by the Justice RM Lodha panel recommendations on reforms by 3 December . The top court ordered that none of...

Television TV Channels Sports
TVS Tyres is co-presenter for Asian Champions Trophy 2016

Continuing its strong connect with sports, TVS Tyres has associated with Asian Champions Trophy 2016 by becoming the co-presenter. The Asian Champions Trophy is one of the premier hockey tournaments, a much sought after annual international competition promising some great hockey action. This...

Television TV Channels Sports
Q2-17: Zee Learn declares maiden interim dividend

The board of directors of the Essel group’s education company Zee Learn Limited (ZLL) have declared a first time ever dividend of 5 percent per equity share of Re 1 each for the quarter ended 30 September 2016 (Q2-17, current quarter).

Television TV Channels Factual & Documentary
Whether BARC action can stop unethical practices?

MUMBAI: Can businesses and industries practise their art of selling fairly although they have 'Fair Practices' training during academic courses, workshops and several ISO and other certifications? There seems to be the fear of the lawman, and not the law in India. If the traffic cop is watching,...

Television TV Channels Viewership
TV Superhighway: beIN, Yaddo, AfricaXP have joined us, says Magine CEO Ambuj Goyal

CANNES; Magine has secured partnerships with four of the industry’s most exciting sports, documentary and entertainment content providers. Partnerships with beIN, the international media group and owner of MIRAMAX; Yaddo, the new documentary streaming service headed up by former head of The BBC’s...

Television TV Channels Factual & Documentary
Colors emerges strong on strength of Naagin I & II

MUMBAI: One of the top rated shows Naagin Season 2 helped Colors reach a top-ranking position.

Television TV Channels GECs
Pakistan Broadcasters Association to oppose PEMRA Indian content ban

MUMBAI: The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) shocked both Pakistan and Indian broadcasters when it issued an order blanking out  all Indian content from Pakistan’s television channels on 19 October.

Television TV Channels GECs
Sony Pix to telecast 'Jurassic World' on 22 October

Sony Pix will take the viewers on a thrilling, adventurous journey with cloned dinosaurs in their Billion Dollar Premiere property. The channel plans to air Jurassic World on 22 October at 1 pm and 9 pm.

Television TV Channels English Entertainment

Latest News

Load More

Sign up for our Newsletter

subscribe for latest stories