Judgement Briefs

Constitutional Law

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India

(2005) 4 SCC 649

Citation
(2005) 4 SCC 649
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
2 February 2005
Bench
Y.K. Sabharwal; N. Santosh Hegde; S.B. Sinha; B.P. Singh; H.K. Sema

Facts

  • The Board of Control for Cricket in India invited bids for television broadcasting rights relating to cricket matches conducted by it.
  • Zee Telefilms participated in the process and was initially treated as the successful bidder.
  • The BCCI subsequently cancelled the tender process and declined to award the rights to Zee.
  • Zee filed a petition directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32.
  • It alleged that the cancellation was arbitrary and violated Article 14.
  • For an Article 32 petition to succeed, Zee had to establish that BCCI was “State” or an instrumentality of State under Article 12.
  • BCCI argued that it was an autonomous private society receiving no substantial governmental finance and functioning independently of government.

Issue

  • Whether BCCI was “State” under Article 12.
  • Whether the performance of important public functions, by itself, was sufficient to bring a private body within Article 12.
  • Whether the petition under Article 32 was maintainable.
  • Whether remedies could nevertheless exist under Article 226 against BCCI.

Rule

  • The test in Pradeep Kumar Biswas requires cumulative examination of financial, functional and administrative governmental domination.
  • Control must be particular and pervasive.
  • Mere regulatory control does not convert a private body into State.
  • Performance of a function affecting the public is relevant but is not, by itself, conclusive under Article 12.
  • Article 226 is broader than Article 32.
  • A High Court may issue a writ against a private body performing a public duty even when that body is not “State” under Article 12.

Application

  • Majority
  • The majority found that BCCI was not created by a statute.
  • It was registered as a private society.
  • Government did not hold any share capital in it.
  • It received virtually no governmental financial assistance.
  • Its administration and internal decisions were not subject to deep and pervasive governmental control.
  • Government regulation concerning foreign travel, security, stadium use or broadcasting was considered external or regulatory control.
  • Such supervision did not amount to government managing BCCI’s everyday affairs.
  • BCCI undoubtedly exercised enormous influence over cricket.
  • It selected the Indian national team, organised international matches and controlled important commercial rights.
  • However, its monopoly over cricket had not been formally created or legally protected by the State.
  • The majority therefore held that the Pradeep Kumar Biswas standard was not satisfied.
  • BCCI’s public importance could not substitute for the absence of governmental domination.
  • Since BCCI was not State, Zee could not directly invoke Article 32 alleging violation of Article 14.
  • The majority nevertheless clarified that BCCI’s public duties were not entirely beyond judicial review.
  • A person could approach a High Court under Article 226 because that provision extends to any person or body performing a public function.
  • Dissent
  • The dissenting judges focused more strongly on BCCI’s actual power and public role.
  • BCCI exercised a de facto monopoly over organised cricket in India.
  • It selected a team representing the country and determined who could participate in professional cricket.
  • Government had accepted and supported BCCI’s national and international status.
  • According to the dissent, constitutional responsibility should follow such concentrated public power even without formal statutory creation or substantial funding.
  • BCCI should therefore have been treated as a State actor for Article 12 purposes.

Conclusion

  • By a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court held that BCCI was not “State” under Article 12.
  • It was not financially, administratively or functionally dominated by government in the manner required by Pradeep Kumar Biswas.
  • Zee’s Article 32 petition was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.
  • The Court clarified that BCCI could still be subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when performing public duties.
  • The case established an important distinction between:
  • being “State” under Article 12; and