BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) 3 SCC 251

Introduction

• In this case, questions have been raised in relation to the legal status of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and liability arising out of the misuse of power exercised by it, which have attracted the attention of the Honorable Supreme Court of India.

Facts

• The BCCI in 2007 decided to launch the Indian Premier League (IPL) and in a subsequent meeting held on 27th September 2008, decided to appoint Mr. N. Srinivasan as secretary of BCCI and in the same meeting BCCI amended its regulation 6.2.4 to exclude IPL and champions League T20 from its purview.
• In April 2013, Delhi police received information in relation to spot-fixing in IPL and charges were levelled against two people.
• BCCI constituted a committee headed by Shri Sanjay jagdale and two retired judges of Madras High Court and after his resignation the probe committee consisted of the two retired judges.
• Cricket Association of Bihar approached Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking the constitution of committee to be declared ultra-vires of the Constitution and sought the appointment of retired Supreme Court Judges in the panel.
• They also prayed for the termination of contract of IPL franchisee Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals with BCCI and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against N. Srinivasan.
• The court in an order dated 30^th July 2013 declared the constitution of the Probe Commission in contravention to Provisions 2.2 and 6 of IPL operational rules.
• The HC, however, denied relief in the form of constitution of commission consisting of retired judges under Article 226.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the SC by the Cricket Association of Bihar.

Issue Involved

• Whether or not BCCI was ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and if not, whether it was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950?

Observation

• The Court ruled that the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) was not a government entity but an autonomous body, not subject to deep state control.
• Despite enjoying a cricket monopoly, this status was not conferred or protected by the State, with minimal financial assistance.
• While not a 'State' under Article 12, the BCCI, due to its public functions, falls under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court per Article 226.
• Actions during the discharge of these public functions are subject to judicial scrutiny, applying standards akin to those for state actions.
• The BCCI's significant control over cricket, recognised by the government, implies it undertakes public functions, even if currently managed by a non-government entity.
• The court emphasized that governmental support and absence of regulation indicated the public nature of BCCI's functions, making it amenable to judicial review.

Conclusion

• The legal status of BCCI is merely that of society which is registered under an Act but with the changing scenarios various approaches have been adopted to clear the position of BCCI regarding its status under Article 12 of the Constitution.
• Through this judgement it was made clear that Board performs public function because of the indefinite and enormous power it possesses in the domain of cricket and not only this, but it also has tacit consent of the government since all the activities it performs it gets support from Government of India.

Notes

Article 12 of Constitution of India, 1950 deals with meaning of State provided unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.