Zee Telefilms Limited v. Union of India

B.C.C.I. is a private body registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. It regulates cricket in India. It selects teams, organises tournaments and manages international matches.

B.C.C.I. floated a tender for the broadcasting (telecast) rights of cricket matches for four years. Zee Telefilms and E.S.P.N. Star Sports both placed bids. After negotiation, B.C.C.I. decided to award the contract to Zee Telefilms. Zee agreed to pay a very large amount and deposited Rs. 92.5 crore.

E.S.P.N. then filed a case in the Bombay High Court. After that, B.C.C.I. cancelled the entire process, terminated Zee's contract and returned the deposit.

Zee Telefilms felt the decision was arbitrary and unfair. It went straight to the Supreme Court under Article 32. It claimed that B.C.C.I.'s decisions violated its fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g).

1. Is B.C.C.I. a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12?

2. Was the cancellation of Zee's contract arbitrary and a violation of Article 14?

3. Is a writ petition directly maintainable against B.C.C.I. under Article 32?

The first question was the key to the other two. If B.C.C.I. was not a State, fundamental rights could not be enforced against it under Article 32 at all.

For Zee Telefilms (petitioner): B.C.C.I. should be treated as a State. It has complete control, a monopoly, over cricket in India. Everything from domestic tournaments like the Ranji Trophy to the selection of the national team is in its hands alone. It receives support and recognition from the government, such as nominal rent on stadiums, and its selected team represents India as the national team. Organising cricket and selecting the national team are public functions. Zee relied on Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975), where public corporations were held to be a State. It also relied on Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1980), which held that even a society registered under the Societies Registration Act could be a State. Since B.C.C.I. performs a public duty, its actions should be subject to fundamental rights.

Union of India: The Union filed an affidavit saying that B.C.C.I. was a State.

For B.C.C.I. (and E.S.P.N.): B.C.C.I. is a private body. It was not created by any statute and receives no funding from the government. Its monopoly was not granted by the government. It arose from its own first-mover advantage, that is, the benefit of being first in the field. If B.C.C.I. were a State, all sports federations, such as those for hockey, football and kabaddi, would also become States, which would be a dangerous precedent. Under the Pradeep Kumar Biswas (2002) test of financial, functional and administrative control, B.C.C.I. would fail. So it is not a State, and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 does not arise.

The Supreme Court held, by a majority of 3:2, that B.C.C.I. is not a State under Article 12. The majority opinion was written by Justice N. Santosh Hegde and joined by Justice B. P. Singh and Justice H. K. Sema. Therefore, a writ petition cannot be filed directly against B.C.C.I. in the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Reasoning of the majority: The Court applied the test from Pradeep Kumar Biswas. B.C.C.I. was not created by any statute. Its share capital is not held by the government. The government does not bear its expenditure. The government has no financial, functional or administrative control over it. Some government support, or de facto recognition (recognition in practice), does not make it a State. Popularity or public opinion cannot decide whether a body is a State. Merely because cricket is like a religion in India, B.C.C.I. does not automatically become a State. If B.C.C.I. were a State, all other private federations would have to be treated the same way. This would open the floodgates to unlimited litigation under Article 32, which would not be practical.

Remedy under Article 226: The Court accepted that B.C.C.I. performs public functions. For this reason, High Courts can issue writs against it under Article 226. Article 32 is only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, which are generally enforceable against the State. Article 226 is broader. A High Court can issue a writ to any person or authority, and not only for fundamental rights but for any other purpose as well.

Minority (dissent): Justice S. B. Sinha, along with Justice S. N. Variava, dissented. In their view, B.C.C.I. holds complete control over cricket, selects the national team and enjoys government recognition. Its functions are therefore State-like, and it should be treated as a State under Article 12.

Constitution of India, Article 12; Article 14; Article 19(1)(g); Article 32; Article 226; Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act (under which B.C.C.I. is registered)

The case is a landmark on the meaning of 'State' under Article 12. It shows how the Pradeep Kumar Biswas test is applied to a powerful private body.

It clearly separates the remedies under Article 32 and Article 226. A writ against a private body performing public functions is maintainable in the High Court under Article 226, but not in the Supreme Court under Article 32.

It shows that private organisations can still indirectly face constitutional accountability. It also warned B.C.C.I. that it must act fairly and transparently while performing public duties, or the High Court could step in.

It connects to the later case of B.C.C.I. v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015), concerning conflict of interest in the I.P.L. There the Supreme Court held that B.C.C.I. performs public functions and is subject to judicial review under Article 226. In that judgment the Court set up the Justice R. M. Lodha Committee, whose recommendations brought major reforms to B.C.C.I.

The 3:2 split, the majority by Justice Santosh Hegde and the dissent by Justice S. B. Sinha are common exam points.

Hypothetical: Aadil is a talented kabaddi player. A national kabaddi federation drops him from the national team without giving any reason. The federation is a private society; the government did not create it, does not fund it and does not control it. Aadil files a writ petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32, claiming his Article 14 rights were violated. Applying the reasoning in Zee Telefilms, the petition would fail, because the federation is not a 'State' under Article 12. However, his lawyer Zoya advises him that selecting a national team is a public function. Aadil can therefore approach the High Court under Article 226, which can issue a writ against any person or authority performing public duties.