Back
H.K.SEMA, N.S.HEGDE, S.N.VARIAVA, B.P.SINGH
Zee Telefilms LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
The ratio decidendi of the legal document can be summarized as follows:
The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (the Board) qualifies as a "State" or "Other Authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court examined the nature, functions, control, and recognition of the Board to determine whether it performs public functions or discharges duties of a governmental nature.
It was held that the Board exercises deep and pervasive control over the sport of cricket in India, including the regulation, selection, and disciplinary functions, which are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions. The Board's monopoly status, its role in representing India internationally, and its recognition and de facto control by the Union of India further support the conclusion that it functions as an instrumentality of the State.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the Board answers the description of "Other Authorities" under Article 12, and therefore, it is a "State" for the purposes of fundamental rights enforcement under Part III of the Constitution. This determination is based on the overall assessment of its functions, control, recognition, and the significant impact of its activities on public life and individual rights.
The judgment emphasizes that the classification of an entity as a "State" or "Other Authority" depends on the totality of its functions, control, and influence, rather than solely on statutory creation or formal recognition. This approach reflects a purposive and evolving interpretation of constitutional provisions to accommodate changing socio-economic realities and the expanding scope of State functions.
In sum, the ratio decidendi underscores that bodies discharging public functions, exercising monopoly powers, and closely linked to governmental activities, even if not created by statute, can be deemed "State" within the meaning of Article 12, thereby making their actions subject to judicial review and constitutional scrutiny.
Majority Judgment
Santosh Hegde, J. (on behalf of B.P. Singh and H.K. Sema, JJ. and for Himself)—I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Sinha, J. I regret I cannot persuade myself to agree with the conclusions recorded in the said judgment, hence this separate opinion. The Judgment of Sinha, J. has elaborately dealt with the facts, relevant rules and bye-laws of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (the Board). Hence, I consider it not necessary for me to reproduce the same including the lengthy arguments advanced on behalf of the parties except to make reference to the same to the extent necessary in the course of this judgment.
2. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board has raised the preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that under Article 32, a petition is not maintainable against the Board since the same is not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is this issue which is being considered in this judgment.
3. In support of his argument Mr. K.K. Venugopal has contended the Board is not created by any statute and is only registered under the Societies Registrati
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
