Quick answer
No. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 February 2005), a 3:2 majority of the Supreme Court held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not "State" under Article 12, so a writ petition under Article 32 against it was not maintainable. The BCCI was not created by statute, the Government held no share in it, gave it practically no financial help, and did not exercise deep and pervasive control over it. But because the BCCI performs public functions, an aggrieved person can still approach a High Court under Article 226.
The case
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2004, Supreme Court of India, decided 2 February 2005. Five-judge bench. Majority opinion by N. Santosh Hegde, J. (with B.P. Singh and H.K. Sema, JJ.); S.B. Sinha, J. (with S.N. Variava, J.) dissented, holding the petition maintainable. Facts: the BCCI accepted Zee's bid for four-year exclusive television rights for cricket, but after litigation in the Bombay High Court it cancelled the whole tender process on 21 September 2004. Zee alleged arbitrariness under Article 14. Held: the BCCI is not State under Article 12; the Article 32 petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Why the BCCI was not State
The majority applied the test in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (2002): is the body financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government? It found that:
- the BCCI is not created by a statute (it is a registered society);
- no part of its share capital is held by the Government;
- practically no financial assistance is given by the Government;
- there is no deep and pervasive State control; the control that exists is purely regulatory;
- performing public duties, such as selecting the national team, does not by itself make a body an "other authority" under Article 12.
For the test itself, see Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. IICB. For a fuller brief of this case, see Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India.
Article 32 versus Article 226
| Point | Article 32 (Supreme Court) | Article 226 (High Court) |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Enforcement of fundamental rights only | Fundamental rights and "for any other purpose" |
| Against whom | Generally the State under Article 12 | Any person or authority, including a private body performing public functions |
| Available against the BCCI? | No (majority view) | Yes, for breach of public duty |
The majority said that although Article 32 was not available, the aggrieved party could seek relief under Article 226, which is much wider than Article 32, when a private body exercises public functions.
Zoya, a State-level cricketer, is dropped from a national selection trial by a private sports federation without any reason. She cannot file a writ under Article 32 claiming the federation violated Article 14, because the federation is not State. She can, however, file a writ petition under Article 226 in the High Court, arguing that the federation acted arbitrarily while performing a public function.
Exam point
Zee Telefilms (2005): BCCI is not State under Article 12 because there is no deep and pervasive government control, but its public functions can be checked by a High Court under Article 226.
