Is BCCI a State?
BCCI is the governing body that oversees cricket in India. It isn’t a government body, rather it is
an autonomous body, having its fund for maintenance. Due to its state-like functions and
monopolistic behavior in the market, there have been several debates on reforming BCCI to a
government body.
1. Ajay Jadeja v UOI
In the Ajay Jadeja case, the Court, dealing with the question of nature of the duties performed by BCCI and that of
the rights infringed, held that a writ under Article 226 is maintainable given the public nature of activities undertaken
by BCCI.
In Rahul Mehra case, it was clarified that due to the withdrawal of the writ petition by Ajay Jadeja, the order passed
thereof also stood vacated. However, it was affirmed that writ petition against BCCI is maintainable owing to the
monopoly nature of the functions performed by BCCI in regulating and controlling the game of cricket. According to
the Court the words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 may cover any other person or body performing
public duty.
2. ZeeTelefilms Ltd vs. Union of India (2005) Magna Carta of Indian Sports Law.
Brief : Zee Telefilms had bid for telecast rights for certain tournaments which had been
cancelled by BCCI. Against this, Zee Telefilms filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India on the ground that the Board being recognized by the Union of
India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports could be considered to be 'other authority' for
purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore capable of coming under
Article 32/226 of the Constitution of India.
Observations made by Court:
The Board is not created by a statute.
The Government holds no part of the share capital of the Board. Practically no
financial assistance is given by the Government to meet the whole or entire
expenditure of the Board.
The Board does enjoy a monopoly status in the field of cricket, but such status is
not State conferred, or State protected.
There is no existence of a deep and pervasive State control. The control if anyis
only regulatory in nature as applicable to other similar bodies. This controlis not
specifically exercised under any special statute applicable to the Board.
All functionsof the Board are neither public function nor are they closelyrelated to
governmental functions.
The Board is not created by transfer of a Government owned corporation. Itis an
autonomous body.
The facts established do not cumulatively show that the Board is
financially,functionally or administratively dominated or is under the control of
the Government. Thus, the little control that the Government may be said to
haveon the Board is not pervasive in nature. Such limited control is
purelyregulatory control and nothing more.
3. BCCI V. state Association of Bihar
This Court held that even when the Board of Control for Cricket in India was
not “State” within the meaning of Article 12, it was amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it was
discharging important public functions.
There are three reasons as to why BCCI should be given the ‘state’ status.
Firstly, BCCI creates a monopoly in the market. The Board is the richest and most
powerful cricket board in the world. The Board has created several regional cricket
associations across India. These factors make it very difficult for any prospective
competitors to enter the field.
Secondly. BCCI’s functions are of the public in nature. This includes a selection of the
team for International tournaments and matches, which is generally performed by
National Sports Federations.
Thirdly, BCCI is a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act in
1928. In addition to that, it’s a charitable society. This tag of a charitable society has
given BCCI privileges in the form of tax exemptions, land grants, etc. These privileges
enjoyed by the Board comes within the concept of ‘substantial financing’ given under
section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Game v skill
Supreme Court in Dr KR Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu;9 State of Andhra Pradesh
v. K Satyanarayana;10 and State of Bombay v. RMD Chamarbaugwala 11 has laid down that
a game of chance is where the element of chance predominates over the element of skill,
whereas a game of skill is where the element of skill predominates over the element of
chance. The card games of rummy and bridge, along with other sports like golf and chess,
have been classified as games of skill. In R Shankar Creation Association v. State of
Karnataka,12 the Karnataka High Court classified poker, darts, carom and chess, among
others, as games of skill.
Gender discrimination in sports
