Zee, BCCI argue case in Supreme Court

The dispute between Zee Telefilms, Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and ESPN-Star Sports over the telecasting rights of the cricket series was caught in the legal thicket as they argued out a technicality the whole day before a five-judge bench.

The arguments on the 'maintainability' of the writ petition moved by Zee is likely to take the whole week. There is an array of other issues which have to be sorted out after this initial hurdle.

The judges have observed that there would be no interim order. Nor have the parties asked for any such order to tide over the present deadlock.

BCCI counsel K K Venugopal raised the preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of Zee's petition before the Bench headed by Justice Santosh Hegde.

According to him, BCCI is an autonomous body, which has little to do with the Government. A writ petition can be moved only against the Government and other statutory authorities.

Since the government has no control over BCCI, the Zee petition should be dismissed at the threshold itself, the counsel argued. ESPN's counsel Soli Sorabjee also tagged the same line.

However, Zee's counsel Harish Salve read out the objects of the BCCI which, among other things, talked of control of the game of cricket in the country, its power to regulate it, finance it, select Indian teams for matches abroad, frame laws of cricket for the country and take disciplinary action against errant players.

There is no other body which does all these and therefore, the government has virtually recognised it as the regulator in this important public activity. It has defacto monopoly in this field.

It is not a club selecting teams for matches within the country. It selects team which carry the flag of India and represent India. Therefore, it stands in the shoes of the government for all relevant purposes.

Salve read out the stand of ESPN in the Bombay High Court where it had asserted that BCCI had the exclusive right to control and regulate the sport in the name of the country and it was a public authority.

The counsel argued that the same company has now turned around and took the stand that BCCI has nothing to do with the government.

The Supreme Court had yesterday issued notices to the BCCI, ESPN-Star Sports and others on a petition filed by Zee challenging the cancellation of the award of telecast rights to it.

Zee, which is starting a sports channel this week, contends that BCCI had cancelled the telecast rights granted to it in a malafide manner to benefit a foreign sports channel.

The board on September 21 cancelled the entire tender process in which Zee had emerged as the highest bidder for telecast of all matches played in India between 2004-08.

Seeking dismissal of zee tv's petition against its cricket telecast rights decision, the cricket board today contended before the supreme court that it was not "state" within the meaning of the constitution and no writ could lie against it.

Opening the arguments before the five-judge constitution bench headed by justice n santosh hegde, bcci counsel k k venugopal said the board was an autonomous body promoting cricket and had nothing to do with the government.

As it had no links with the government and did not receive any grant from the government the board could not be described as "state" within the meaning of the article 12 of the constitution, venugopal said.

For these reasons a writ petition could not be maintained against the cricket board, he said.

The bcci said that zee tv's writ petition challenging cancellation of tender process for award of cricket telecast rights was not maintainable and should be dismissed.

Espn-star sports, which had filed a writ petition in the high court describing bcci as 'state', in a counter-affidavit in the supreme court today supported the cricket board and said this writ petition was not maintainable.

The apex court had yesterday issued notices to bcci, espn-star sports and the centre on a petition filed by zee telefilms ltd challenging the cancellation of award of cricket match telecast rights to it.