Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 2 February 2005 · 5 judges

By majority, the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not 'State' under Article 12, so a petition under Article 32 does not lie against it, though Article 226 may lie for its public duties.

Facts

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, invited tenders in August 2004 for exclusive television rights for four years. It negotiated with and decided to accept the first petitioner's offer, and a deposit was made. During writ proceedings brought by a rival bidder in the Bombay High Court, the Board on 21 September 2004 cancelled the entire tender process and terminated the petitioner's contract. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the termination as arbitrary under Article 14. A three judge Bench referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. The Board objected that it is not 'State' under Article 12, and this was heard as a preliminary issue.

Questions before the Court

Whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India is 'State' or 'other authority' within Article 12.
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable against the Board.

What the Court held

The majority (Santosh Hegde, J.) held that the ratio of the seven judge Bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas binds the Court. A body is 'State' only if, on the cumulative facts, it is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the pervasive control of the Government; mere regulatory control is not enough.
The Board is not created by statute, the Government holds no share capital and gives practically no financial aid, its monopoly is not State conferred, and government control is only regulatory. It is therefore not 'State' under Article 12.
That the Board regulates cricketers' rights under Article 19(1)(g) or performs functions akin to public duties does not make it 'State'. The State has not authorised it to perform them.
A person aggrieved by the Board's exercise of public duties may seek relief in the ordinary course of law or by a writ petition under Article 226, which is wider than Article 32. The Article 32 petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Why it matters

The majority applies the Pradeep Kumar Biswas test to hold that a private sports body with a de facto monopoly is not 'State' under Article 12, while recognising that its public functions may be open to challenge under Article 226. The dissent of S.B. Sinha, J. held that the Board discharges public functions, is a State actor and is amenable to Article 32.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“To these facts if we apply the principles laid down by seven Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), it would be clear that the facts established do not cumulatively show that the Board is financially, functionally or administratively dominated by or is under the control of the Government. Thus the little control that the Government may be said to have on the Board is not pervasive in nature. Such limited control is purely regulatory control and nothing more.”

Santosh Hegde, J.Page 9 of the judgment

“Thus, it is clear that when a private body exercises its public functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article 226. Therefore, merely because a non-governmental body exercises some public duty that by itself would not suffice to make such body a State for the purpose of Article 12.”

Santosh Hegde, J.Page 11 of the judgment

“In the above view of the matter, the second respondent-Board cannot be held to be a State for the purpose of Article 12. Consequently, this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.”

Santosh Hegde, J.Page 12 of the judgment

“We, therefore, are of the opinion that law requires to be expanded in this field and it must be held that the Board answers the description of "Other Authorities" as contained in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and satisfies the requisite legal tests, as noticed hereinbefore. It would, therefore, be a 'State'.”

S.B. Sinha, J. (dissenting)Page 55 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Follows Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)“Above is the ratio decidendi laid down by a seven Judge Bench of this Court which is binding on this Bench.” (page 8)

Case and bench

Parties: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India
Case: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2004, with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20186 of 2004
Decided: 2 February 2005
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema, S.B. Sinha
Opinions: Majority 3:2. Santosh Hegde, J. wrote for himself, B.P. Singh and H.K. Sema, JJ.; S.B. Sinha, J., with S.N. Variava, J., dissented.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.