The myLaw Blog
BCCI is not “State” under Article 12 – the story of “other authorities”

BCCI is not “State” under Article 12 – the story of “other authorities”

The Supreme Court has held in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Others that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (“the BCCI“) was not “State” under Article 12. In holding so, the two-judge bench was bound by the Court’s precedent. The table below illustrates this precedent.

[Learn Sports Law now! Click here.]

Article12_precedent_StoryuptoZeeTelefilms(Akriti Gupta is a student at the Jindal Global Law School.)

We hope you liked this article. You might want to check out our course on Sports Law.

Screen Shot 2017-02-07 at 6.58.18 PM

3 comments

  • A PIL can be filed as well because BCCI being the sole controller of cricket, affects millions of lives, of fans as well as the fundamental rights of players.

    If emotions and millions of lives are affected by its decision then to a certain limit it is performing a public function which in no way a private body can perform.

    Hence though it is not a state under article 12 , a PIL can be entertained against it.

  • The reasoning is strange because it does not indicate under what provisions of the Constitution which defines what the Supreme Court can do or any other law which confers jurisdiction to the court to intervene. Art 32 confers on every citizen the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights. Express mention of the purpose excludes all else and what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. A dealer in food stuffs can affect the health of millions if he markets adulterated food stuffs or even toys which have harmful chemicals in the colourings used. The court has been blind to all these despite Art 372(2) requiring all existing laws to be brought into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution within three years and Art 13(1) declaring void any provision of any existing la which abridges or takes away any of the fundamental tights. Access to justice is a fundamental right in terms of Art 14 and Art 32 read together but the Court has not stuck down the Court Fees Act or the
    Limitation Act. Its desire to control the BCCI can be justified only if the Court can indicate the law under which it acts.

  • The Law of the Land regarding State was finally settled by the 7 judge CB in Pradeep Kumar Biswas’s case (2002) , which does not find any mention in this article. The case laid down the Tripartite test of “administratively, functionally and financially controlled by State”.

    Article lacks thorough research !

Get Updates