The Supreme Court today ruled that Indian cricket board is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution and dismissed Zee TV's writ petition challenging the scrapping of four-year telecast rights for domestic cricket matches.The court said taking into account the functioning of the board and the duties discharged by it there is nothing to show that the government in any way exercised control over its functions and administration.The board though discharges some element of public duty involving selection of the Indian team, it is not sufficient to include it within the meaning of the 'state.'If the cricket board was to be held an instrumentality of the government, then all other sports bodies which control the game should also be declared as 'state,' the five judge bench held by 3:2 majority. "The board cannot be singly identified as a state for the purpose of Article 12," the bench said observing that it would be violative of Article 14 (right to equality) if one takes into account other bodies controlling various games.The petitioners had contended that board was discharging public duty by selecting the Indian team and the umpires which were all in the nature of state functions.Rejecting this argument the court said, assuming that these functions were in the nature of public duty this would not be sufficient grounds to hold the board to be an instrumentality of the state.The minority judgement said the government has not by any law allowed BCCI to discharge the functions of selecting the Indian team and the umpires."In the absence of any such authorisation, if a private board discharges these functions, it would be not proper for the court to hold the same body as an instrumentality of the state.The Indian government had failed to prove that it has given de facto recognition to the cricket board for dischgarging these function," the bench said.Assailing the government of taking a stand the board has been de facto recognised to carry out public functions, the court said "the control exercised by the Indian government in the board was not administrative in nature but only regulatory."While holding that no writ petition can be filed against the board claiming violation of fundemental rights, the court clarified that it did not mean that the board would go scot free for irregularities committed by it.The court said an aggrieved party can seek redressal of its grievance by taking recourse to the ordinary course of law or by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution which is much wider.The two judges who differed with the minority judgement held that BCCI was a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution and hence the writ petition is maintainable.
