Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

In the Supreme Court of India

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2004 with S.L.P. (C) No. 20186 of 2004
Decided On: 02.02.2005
FACTS OF THE CASE
Pursuant to or in furtherance of a notice inviting tender for grant of exclusive television rights for
a period of four years, several entertainment groups including the Petitioners and the Fifth
Respondent herein gave their offers. For which, both the Petitioners and the said Respondent
were found eligible therefore. The First Petitioner gave an offer for an amount of Rs.
12,060,000,000/- Or Rs. 13,005,000,000/Upon holding negotiations with the First Petitioner as also the Fifth Respondent, the Board
decided to accept the offer of the former; pursuant to and in furtherance whereof a sum of Rs.
92.50 crores was deposited in the State Bank of Travancore. In response to a draft letter of intent
sent by the Board, the First Petitioner agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of offer subject
to the conditions mentioned therein.
The Fifth Respondent in the meanwhile filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The
parties thereto filed their affidavits in the said proceeding. In its affidavit, the Board justified its
action in granting the contract in favour of the First Petitioner. On 21.9.2004, however the Board
before commencing its argument stated that it purported to have cancelled the entire tender
process on the premise that no concluded contract was reached between the parties as no letter of
intent had therefore been issued. The First Petitioner, however, raised a contention that such a
concluded contract in fact had been arrived at. The Fifth Respondent, in view of the statements
made by the counsel for the Board, prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition, which was
permitted. On the same day i.e. on 21.9.2004 itself, the Board terminated the contract of the First
Petitioner by invoking Clause 5.3, 5.4 (c) and 5.4 (d) of the invitation to tender (ITT). The
petitioners thus approached the said court on the grounds that the action on the part of the Board
in terminating the contract is arbitrary and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE
The main issue in the case is regarding the maintainability of the writ petition as the respondents
contend that the Board is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India.
DECISION AND HOLDING
The apex court in the said case dismissed the petition by the petitioners holding that the second
respondent-Board cannot be held to be a State for the purpose of Article 12. Hence, the writ
petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the board.
SEPARATE DISSENTING JUDGEMENT
In this case, the apex court elaborately discussed about the position of BCCI as an
instrumentality of the state under article 12 and being bound by the precedent in Pradeep
Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology 1, held, by majority of 3:2, that since
BCCI is not financially, functionally and administratively controlled by government
cumulatively and so it cannot be held as state and thus writ petition under article 12 is not
maintainable. But for the later development in the concept of state under article 12 given in
the case of BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors 2. Where the apex court held that
even though the BCCI does not fall within the meaning of article 12, writ petition under article
32 was maintainable against the said board, we are more interested in the dissenting judgment
according to which there was no disability in considering BCCI to be a state for the purposes
of article 12. The dissenting judgment went into the reason that even if the board was
performing public duties, not all duties were in the public domain, and therefore only in
respect of those functions which were ostensibly in the public domain would a writ lie.
The dissenting judgment was delivered by S.B. Sinha, J.
According to sinha, J. The Constitution of India is an ongoing document which must be
interpreted accordingly. He referred to the comment mentioned in Francis Bennion's 'Statutory
1 (2002) 5 SCC 111
2 (2015) 3 SCC 251

Interpretation', Fourth Edition which said that- in construing an ongoing Act, the interpreter
is to presume that Parliament intended the Act to be applied at any future time in such a way
as to give effect to the true original intention. Accordingly, the interpreter is to make
allowances for any relevant changes that have occurred, since the Act's passing, in law, social
conditions, technology, the meaning of words, and other matters..
Coming to the main issue of the case he went into interpretation of the article 12 of The
Constitution of India which reads as:
"12. In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and
Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or
other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India."
According to him, in this Article, the 'State' merely has an inclusive definition. It includes all
other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. It
does not say that such other authorities must be under the control of the Government of India.
The word 'or' is disjunctive and not conjunctive. Also, in order to arrive at a conclusion s to what
comes under the definition of the word other authorities the meaning of the word authority
should be ascertained.
Referring to the concise oxford English dictionary, 10 th edition, he divided the definition into
three broad concepts for determining as to what falls within the expression of other authorities:
(i) The Corporations and the Societies' created by the State for carrying on its trading activities in
terms of Article 298 of the Constitution where for the capital, infrastructure, initial investment
and financial aid etc. are provided by the State and it also exercises regulation and control there
over.
(ii) Bodies created for research and other developmental works which is otherwise a
governmental function but may or may not be a part of the sovereign function.
(iii) A private body is allowed to discharge public duty or positive obligation of public nature and
furthermore is allowed to perform regulatory and controlling functions and activities which were
otherwise the job of the government.

He states that it is necessary is to notice the functions of the Body concerned. A 'State' has
different meanings in different context. In a traditional sense, it can be a body politic but in
modern international practice, a State is an organization which receives the general recognition
accorded to it by the existing group of other States. The expression "other authorities" in Article
12 of the Constitution of India is 'State' within the territory of India as contradistinguished from a
State within the control of the Government of India. The concept of State under Article 12 is in
relation to the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part-III of the Constitution and Directive
Principles of the State Policy contained in Part-IV thereof. The contents of these two parts
manifest that Article 12 is not confined to its ordinary or constitutional sense of an independent
or sovereign meaning so as to include within its told whatever comes within the purview thereof
so as to instill the public confidence in it.
The board herein is recognized by the Union of India as its representative. The feature that the
Board has been allowed to exercise the powers enabling it to trespass across the fundamental
rights of a citizen is of great significance. In terms of the Memorandum of Association even the
States are required to approach the Board for its direction. He believes that If the 'Constitution
Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh3 and
development of law made therefrom is to be given full effect, it is not only the functions of the
Government alone which would enable a body to become a State but also when a body performs
governmental functions or quasi-governmental functions as also when its business is of public
importance and is fundamental for the life of the people.
STATE UNDER ARTICLE 12: DEVELOPMENT OF LAW
He has further looked into the development of law from the time when companies, societies etc.
registered under the Indian Companies Act and Societies Registration Act were treated as
separate corporate entities being governed by its own rules and regulations and, thus, held not to
be 'States' although they were virtually run as department of the Government, to the holding that
Statutory authorities and local bodies also came within the preview of state under article 12,
which was decided in case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal and Ors.4
3 1975 SCR (3) 619
4 1967 SCR (3) 377

The concept that all public sector undertakings incorporated under the Indian Companies Act or
Societies Registration Act or any other Act for answering the description of State must be
financed by the Central Government has now changed and the primary question which, now, is
required to be posed is whether the body in question exercises public function.
According to him, the law exists to serve the needs of the society which is governed by it. If the
law is to play its allotted role of serving the needs of the society, it must reflect the ideas and
ideologies of that society. It must keep lime with the heartbeats of the society and with the needs
and aspirations of the people. As the society changes, the law cannot remain immutable. Looking
into the tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswass case he observed that there exists a
distinction between a 'State' based on its being a statutory body and a one based on the principles
propounded in the case of Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors.5
He believes that Constitutions have to evolve the mode for welfare of their citizens and
flexibility is the hallmark of our Constitution. Thus, the expansion in the definition of State is not
to be kept confined only to business activities of Union of India or other State Governments in
terms of Article 298 of the Constitution of India but must also take within its fold any other
activity which has a direct influence on the citizens. The expression "education" must be given a
broader meaning having regard to Article 21A of the Constitution of India as also Directive
Principles of the State Policy. There is a need to look into the governing power subject to the
fundamental Constitutional limitations which requires an expansion of the concept of State
action.
In order to determine the meaning of the word state and the concept of discharge of public duty
by private bodies, he found it necessary to understand the power of the courts in different
countries and the scope of judicial review in matters relating to such. Encompassing the stand of
the courts in different countries like United Kingdom, Australia, Scotland, new Zealand, the
United States of America, etc. he noticed that The approach of the court as regard judicial review
has undergone a sea change even in England after the Human Rights Act, 1998 came into force
as doctrine of incompatibility is being applied more frequently even in determining the validity
of legislations. The English Courts despite their reluctance to exercise power of judicial review
5 1981 SCR (2) 79

over the activities of sports association noticed in the context of Human Rights Act, 1998 that
there are public bodies which are hybrid in nature who have functions of public and private
nature but they would be public authorities. He found that even English Courts imposed high
standard of fairness in conduct in relation to such bodies in sharp contrast to purely private
bodies.
While discussing the rights of Indian players under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
which would include a right to work and a right to pursue one's occupation with reference to
foreign laws he states that the Board while enjoying monopoly in cricket exercises enormous
power which is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Its action may disable a person from pursuing his
vocation and in that process subject a citizen to hostile discrimination or impose an embargo
which would make or mar a player's career as was in the case of In Greig and Ors. v. Insole and
Ors.6 The right to pursue an occupation or the right of equality is embedded in our Constitution
whereby citizens of India are granted much higher right as compared to common law right in
England. A body although self-regulating, if performs public duty by way of exercise of
regulatory machinery, a judicial review would lie against it as was in the case of R. v. Panel on
Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc and Anr.7 The question has since been considered
from a slightly different angle viz., when such action affects the human right of the person
concerned holding that the same would be public function. If the action of the Board impinges
upon the fundamental or other constitutional rights of a citizen or if the same is ultra vires or by
reason thereof an injury or material prejudice is caused to its member or a person connected with
cricket, judicial review would lie. Such functions on the part of the Board being public function,
any violation of or departure or deviation from abiding by the rules and regulation framed by it
would be subject to judicial review.
PUBLIC FUNCTION AND PUBLIC DUTY:
As his argument relies on the discharge of public function by any established body he
continuously tries to ascertain the meaning of public function and public duty. According to
him the concept of public law function is yet to be crystalised. In order to find as to what would
6 [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302.
7 [1987 (1) All ER 564]

be a public function he refers to American Constitutional Law by Laurence H. Tribe at page 1705
which says When the state "merely" authorizes a given "private" action, that action cannot automatically
become one taken under "state authority" in any sense that makes the Constitution applicable.
Which authorizations have that Constitution - triggering effect will necessarily turn on the
character of the decision-making responsibility thereby placed (or left) in private hands.
However described, there must exist a category of responsibilities regarded at any given time as
so "public" or "governmental that their discharge by private persons, pursuant to state
authorization even though not necessarily in accord with state direction, is subject to the federal
constitutional norms that would apply to public officials discharging those same
responsibilities
Performance of a public function in the context of the Constitution of India would be to allow an
entity to perform the function as an authority within the meaning of Article12 which makes it
subject to the constitutional discipline of fundamental rights. In the instant case he states that,
there does not exist any legislation made either by any State or by the Union of India regulating
and controlling the cricketing activities in the country. The Board authorized itself to make law
regulating cricket in India which it did and which it was allowed to do by the States either
overtly or covertly. The duty to act fairly is inherent in body which exercises such enormous
power. Such a duty can be envisioned only under Article 14 of the Constitution and not under the
Administrative Law.
He believes that Governmental functions are multi-facial. There cannot be a single test for
defining public functions. Such functions are performed by variety of means. Many public duties
are implied by the courts rather than commanded by the legislature; some can even be said to be
assumed voluntarily. He states that there are public duties which arise from sources other than a
statute. These duties may be more important than they are often thought to be or perceived. Such
public duties may arise by reason of (i) Prerogative, (ii) Franchise and (iii) Charter. All the duties
in each of the categories are regarded as relevant in several cases. He thus holds that the
functions of the Board, having regard to its nature and character of functions would be public
functions.

AUTHORITY
Sinha, J. has further in his discussion also tried to understand the concept of authority.
According to him, all public and statutory authorities are authorities. But an authority in its
etymological sense need not be a statutory or public authority. Public authorities have public
duties to perform. He further clarifies that there exists a distinction between a statutory authority
and a public authority. A writ not only lies against a statutory authority, it will also be
maintainable against any person and a body discharging public function who is performing duties
under a statute. A body discharging public functions and exercising monopoly power would also
be an authority and, thus, writ may also he against it.
JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
As judicial review forms the basic structure of the constitution Sinha, J. found it necessary to
discussion the scope of judicial review in India with special reference to the main issue in the
case i.e. issue of writs to private body. According to him, Public law remedy by way of
judicial review is available both under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. A writ issues
against a State, a body exercising monopoly, a statutory body, a legal authority, a body
discharging public utility services or discharging some public function. A writ would also
issue against a private person for the enforcement of some public duty or obligation, which
ordinarily will have statutory flavour. Having regard to the modern conditions when
Government is entering into business like private sector and also undertaking public utility
services, many of its actions may be a State action even if some of them may be
nongovernmental in the strict sense of the general rule. Although rule is that a writ cannot be
issued against a private body but thereto the following exceptions have been introduced by
judicial gloss:
(a) Where the institution is governed by a statute which imposes legal duties upon it;
(b) Where the institution is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12.

(c) Where even though the institution is not 'State' within the purview of Article 12, it
performs some public function, whether statutory or otherwise.
He also refers to the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Pandas Swami Suvarna
Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. V. V.R. Rudani and Ors 8. Where it was stated that a
writ petition would be maintainable against other persons or bodies who perform public duty.
The nature of duty imposed on the body would be highly relevant for the said purpose. Such
type of duty must be judged in the light of the positive obligation owed by a person or
authority to be the affected party.
Further in order to understand what authorities fall within the preview of the expression other
authorities under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution honble justice referred to the famous
tests which was established in the case of Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
and Ors9. which states as:
(3) It may also be a relevant factor ... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which
is State-conferred or State-protected.
(5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to
governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an
instrumentality or agency of Government.
He also discussed some other tests which had also been propounded by Mathew, J. in Sukhdev
Singh (supra), wherein it was observed:
The growing power of the industrial giants, of the labour unions and of certain other
organized groups, compels a reassessment of the relation between group - power and the
modem State on the one hand and the freedom of the individual on the other. The corporate
organisations of business and labour have long ceased to be private phenomena."
He gives utmost importance to the public function doctrine. Referring to various foreign
judgments where the court opined that, if a given function is of such public importance and so
8 1989 SCR (2) 697
9 Supra note 5.

closely related to governmental functions as to be classified as a governmental agency, then

even the presence or absence of State financial aid might be irrelevant in making a finding of
State action. If the function does not fall within such a description, then mere addition of State
money would not influence the conclusion, he holds that if the functions of the body tails
within the description of the public function, absence of State financial aid would not
influence the conclusion to the contrary.
He further the suggests the following tests in order to resolve the issue of what falls within the
meaning of other authorities :
i) When the body acts as a public authority and has a public duty to perform;
(ii) When it is bound to protect human rights.
(iii) When it regulates a profession or vocation of a citizen which is otherwise a fundamental
right under a statute or its own rule.
(iv) When it regulates the right of a citizen contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India available to the general public and viewers of game of cricket in particular.
(v) When it exercises a de facto or a de jure monopoly;
(vi) When the State out-sources its legislative power in its favor ;
(vii) When it has a positive obligation of public nature.
He believes that the tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case may not be applicable in a
case where the body like the Board was established as a private body long time back. It was
allowed by the State to represent the State or the country in international fora. It became a
representative body of the international organizations as representing the country. When the
nature of function of such a body becomes such that having regard to the enormity thereof it
acquires the status of monopoly for all practical purposes; regulates and control the
fundamental rights of a citizen as regard their right of speech or right of occupation, becomes
representative of the country either overtly or covertly and has a final say in the matter of
registration of players, umpires and other connecting with a very popular sport. The organizers
of competitive test cricket between one association and another or representing different States

or different organizations having the status of a state are allowed to make laws on the subject
which is essentially a State function in terms of Entry 33 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India. In such a case, different tests have to be applied. The tests, thus, which
would be applicable in such cases are coercion test, joint action test, public function test,
entertainment test nexus test supplemental governmental activity test and the importance of
the sport test.
According to him, a body or an organization although created for a private purpose by reason
of extension of its activities may not only start performing governmental functions but also
may become a hybrid body and continue to act both in its private capacity or as public
capacity. Similarly, significant funding by the Government may not by itself make a body a
State if its functions are entirely private in character. Conversely absence of funding for the
functioning of the body or the organization would not deny it from its status of a State; if its
functions are public functions and if it otherwise answers the description of "Other
Authorities". What is necessary to answer the question would be to consider the host of factors
and not just a single factor.
MEMORANDUM OF THE BOARD
In order to understand the importance of the board and whether it performs a public duty or
not honble justice went into the importance of cricket in India and the sentiments related to
the game. . In terms of its Memorandum of Association, its objects, inter alia, are to control
the game of Cricket in India and to resolve the disputes and to give its decision on matters
referred to it by any State, Regional or other Association, to promote the game, to frame the
laws of cricket in India, to select the teams to represent India in Test Matches and various
others and to appoint India's representative or representatives on the International Cricket
Conference and other Conferences, Seminars, connected with the game of cricket;
It is interesting to note the powers and duties of the board which are mentioned in rule 9 of its
memorandum, which are:
(a) To grant affiliations as provided in the Rules or to disaffiliate Members on disciplinary
grounds.

(b) To arrange, control and regulate visits of foreign cricket learns to India and visits of Indian
teams to foreign countries and to settle the terms on which such visits shall be conducted.
(c) To lay down conditions on which Indian players shall take part in a tour to any foreign
country and by which such players shall be governed, including terms of payments to such
players.
(d) To frame bye-laws and lay down conditions including those of travel accommodation and
allowances under which Indian players shall take part in Cricket Tournaments/Matches or
Exhibition, Festival and Charity matches organized by the Board or by a Member under the
authority of the Board in the course of a visit or tour of a foreign Cricket team to India.
(f) To permit under conditions laid, down by the Board or refuse to permit any visit by a team
of players to a foreign country or to India.
(g) To frame the Laws of Cricket in India and to make alteration, amendment or addition to
the laws of Cricket in India whenever desirable or necessary.
(n) To take disciplinary action against a player or a Member of Board.
(o) To appoint Manager and/or other official of Indian teams.
While Rule 9 provides for different powers like framing of bye-laws and lay down conditions
including those of travel accommodation and allowances, and etc. Rule 10 provides for
complete power and control over players within the jurisdiction of a member or an associate
member. Rule 12 provides that an inquiry into conduct of players shall be in the manner as
specified in Rule 38 of the Rules. Also importantly, Rule 38 provides the procedure for
dealing with the misconduct on the part of players, umpires team officials, administrators,
referees and selector and which also empowers it to frame Bye-laws regarding their discipline
and conduct.
GUIDELINES BY UNION OF INDIA
To draw an analogy between the object and duties of the board and the union of India, Sinha, J.
has further discussed the guidelines issued by the union of India through The ministry of Youth
Affairs and Sport where cricket is included in Annexure-I within the category. According to him,

the objective of the said guidelines was to define the areas of responsibility of various agencies
involved in the promotion and development of sports, to identity National Sports Federations
eligible for coverage thereunder and to state the conditions for eligibility which the Government
would insist upon while releasing grants to Sports Federations. For him, the Board for all intent
and purport was a recognized body. Probably in that view of the matter, the Board did not think it
necessary to apply for grant of such recognition of the Union of India asking it for passing a
formal order. However, the Board had all along been obtaining the requisite permission for
sending an Indian team abroad or for inviting a foreign team in India in the prescribed form.
EXPRESS RECOGNITION
When we talk about whether a express recognition to such a body the union of India is a prerequisite to be constituted as authority within the meaning of article 12.sinha, J. went onto
discuss about the importance of de- facto recognition.
The Board contended that it had never applied for recognition nor had it asked for financial aid
or grant of any other benefit. Factually the Union of India has not been able to controvert this
position although in its affidavit affirmed by a Deputy Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, it was stated that Board is a recognized National
Federation. Although he found it true; but in its additional affidavit affirmed by Mrs. Devpreet A.
Singh, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, a
number of documents were annexed which clearly went to show that from the very beginning the
Board, had been asking for permission of the Ministry of Human Resource Development either
to go abroad or to play or participate in other countries or for inviting the others to play in India.
Such permission had been sought for in the form prescribed in terms of the said regulations. The
said documents thus left no manner of doubt that the Board had asked for and the Union of India
had granted de facto recognition.
He rejected the submissions of the respondent counsel to the effect that even while playing
abroad, the Board sends its own team. According to him, it was evident from the that the Board
fields its team as Indian Team and not as Board Eleven, which without having any authority from
the Union of India, it would not be able to do. The stand that the cricket team selected by the
Board only represents it and not the country was incorrect. Having regard to the rules of the ICC,

its own rules as also various documents placed before this Court by the Union of India, the
conduct of both the Board, and the Union of India clearly went to show that sub silentio both the
parties had been acting on the premise that the Board is recognized as the only recognized
National Federation for the purpose of regulating the game of cricket in India.
BOARD: A STATE?
Eventually coming down to the conclusion of whether the board constitutes as an authority
within the meaning of the article 12 of Indian constitution. Honble Justice Sinha submitted that
The Board is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Act. Though created under a
Statute but it was an acknowledged fact that in terms of its Memorandum of Association and
rules framed by it, it had not only the monopoly status as regard the regulation of the game of
cricket but also could lay down the criteria for its membership and furthermore make the law of
sport of cricket. The Board for all intent and purport was a recognized national federation
recognized by the Union of India.
According to him, a monopoly status need not always be created by a Law within the meaning of
Clauses 2 to 6 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. A body which carries on the
monopolistic function of selecting team to represent the nation and whose core function is to
promote a sport that has become a symbol of national identity and a medium of expression of
national pride, must be held to be carrying out governmental functions. A highly arbitrary or
capricious action on the part of such a powerful body would, attract the wrath of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
The monopoly status of the Board herein, according to him, was undisputed. The monopoly
enjoyed by the Board need not be a statutory one so as to conform to the tests contained in
Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. It can be a de facto monopoly which has overtly or
covertly received the blessings of Union of India. The de facto monopoly of the Board was
manifest as it, as a member of ICC, could send an Indian Team abroad or invite a foreign team
onto India. The Board thus, in view of enormity of powers was bound to follow "the doctrine of
fairness and good faith in all its activities".
A public authority, in his opinion, would be an authority which not only could regulate and
control the entire sports activities in relation to cricket but also the decisive character it plays in

formulating the game in all aspects. Even the Federations controlled by the State and other public
bodies as also the State themselves, in view of the Board's Memorandum of Association and the
Rules and Regulations framed by it, and were under its complete control. Thus, it would be
subject to a judicial review.
In furtherance of discussion he stated that the Board was a regulator of cricket played at the
country level both off and on the fields including selection of players and umpires. ICC
possessed and exercised all the powers to regulate international competitive cricket. It exercised
disciplinary power also as in case of violation of the rules, a country member or the player could
be derecognized. The ICC exercised a monopoly over the sports at the international level
whereas Board did so at the country level. It was the Board only, to the exclusion of all others
that could recognize bodies that were entitled to participate in the nominated tournaments.
Players and umpires also must be registered with it. In the event of violation of its rules and
regulations, which may include participation in an unauthorized tournament without its
permission, a player or umpire would forfeit his right to participate in all official cricket matches
which for all intent and purport shall be the end of career of a professional cricketer or umpire.
He further states that while considering the status of the Board vis--vis Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, the Central Government's reluctance to interfere with its day to day
affairs or allowing it to work as an autonomous body, non-assistance in terms of money or the
administrative control there over may not be of much relevance as it was not only given de
facto recognition but also it is aided, facilitated or supported in all other respects by it. He also
defines word 'control' with reference to Black's Law Dictionary in terms of power or authority
to manage, direct, superintend, restrict, regulate, govern, administer, oversee. According to
him, it is not correct that the Board represents itself in international area. If it represents the
country, indisputably it must have the implied sanction of the Government of India to do so.
Its activities, thus, have so far-reaching effect. The Board, thus, according to him, in terms of
ICC Rules, is representative of India. The membership although is in the name of the Board; it
is the country which matters.
Hence, the Board which represents a nation with or without a statutory flavor has duties to
perform towards the players, coaches, umpires, administrators and other team officials. They
have a duty to create safe rules for the sport, if by reason thereof a physical injury to the player

is to be avoided and to keep safety aspect under ongoing review. A body may be autonomous
but with autonomy comes responsibility. Sport is a "good thing" a societal end is to be
provided. Sport must receive encouragement from the State and the general public or at least
not discouraged. Health, sociability and play are considered to be important values to be
recognized in a human. He therefore concluded that law required 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 satisfied the requisite legal tests. It would,
therefore, be a 'State'.
PRECEEDENT
Although, justice sinha acknowledged the fact that the courd was bound by the larger bench
decision in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case, he said that in Pradeep Kumar Biswas the only
question which arose for consideration was as to whether the decision of the Constitution
Bench in Sabhajit Tewary10 was correctly rendered by a Constitution Bench of 5-Judges. As
the said decision centered around the activities of CSIR vis--vis the tests laid down therefore
in Sabhajit Tewary, the ratio must be understood to have been laid down in respect of the
questions raised therein. The questions raised herein were neither canvassed nor was there any
necessity therefore. Pradeep Kumar Biswas, therefore, cannot be treated to be a binding
precedent within the meaning of Article141 of the Constitution of India having been rendered
in a completely different situation.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons discussed above he was of the view that the writ petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India was maintainable against BCCI as it fell within the meaning of
other authorities under article 12 of the Constitution Of India.

10 (1975) 3 SCR 616