Source: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/supreme-court-bcci-performing-public-functions
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:17:35+00:00

Document:
Allegations of sporting frauds like match fixing and betting coupled with allegations of favoritism have cast a cloud over the working of the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI). With cricket being a passion unmatched by anything else, a zero tolerance approach towards any wrong doing is required and calls for cleansing have been made.
2. Civil Appeal No.4236 of 2014 Cricket Association of Bihar v. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.
3. Civil Appeal No. of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.34 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 8 of 2014) Cricket Association of Bihar v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a Society registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Registration of Societies Act, 1975 while the Cricket Association of Bihar is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The corollary of the judgment is that is that if the BCCI is held as an organisation performing ‘public function’, it is deemed to be a ‘state’ under article 12 of the constitution and hence would be covered under the definition of the ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act. The Apex Court referred to the earlier judgments as discussed below and gave certain observations.
1. In Sukhdev and Ors. etc. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr. etc. (1975) 1 SCC 421, referred to Marsh v. Alabama (3) 326 U.S. 501: 19 L. 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. ed. 265 to hold that even where a corporation is privately performing a public function it is bound by the constitutional standard applicable to all State actions.
2. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489 this Court held that while a corporation may be created by a statute or incorporated under a law such as the Companies Act, 1956, or the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the question that often arises is as to when does the corporation become an instrumentality or agency of the Government and what are the tests to determine whether a corporation is or is not such an instrumentality or agency.
4. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 111 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research even when registered as Society was ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12.
“80. The Board is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. It enjoys a monopoly status as regards regulation of the sport of cricket in terms of its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. It controls the sport of cricket and lays down the law therefor. It inter alia enjoys benefits by way of tax exemption and right to use stadia at nominal annual rent. It earns a huge revenue not only by selling tickets to viewers but also selling right to exhibit films live on TV and 29 broadcasting the same. Ordinarily, its full members are the State associations except Association of Indian Universities, Railway Sports Control Board and Services Sports Control Board. As a member of ICC, it represents the country in the international fora. It exercises enormous public functions. It has the authority to select players, umpires and officials to represent the country in the international fora. It exercises total control over the players, umpires and other officers. The Rules of the Board clearly demonstrate that without its recognition no competitive cricket can be hosted either within or outside the country. Its control over the sport of competitive cricket is deeply pervasive and complete.
30. The majority view thus favours the view that BCCI is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 6 even when it is not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. The rationale underlying that view if we may say with utmost respect lies in the “nature of duties and functions” which the BCCI performs. It is common ground that the respondent-Board has a complete sway over the game of cricket in this country. It regulates and controls the game to the exclusion of all others. It formulates rules, regulations norms and standards covering all aspect of the game. It enjoys the power of choosing the members of the national team and the umpires. It exercises the power of disqualifying players which may at times put an end to the sporting career of a person. It spends crores of rupees on building and maintaining infrastructure like stadia, running of cricket academies and Supporting State Associations. It frames pension schemes and incurs expenditure on coaches, trainers etc. It sells broadcast and telecast rights and collects admission fee to venues where the matches are played. All these activities are undertaken with the tacit concurrence of the State Government and the Government f India who are not only fully aware but supportive of the activities of the Board. The State has not chosen to bring any law or taken any other step that would either deprive or dilute the Board’s monopoly in the field of cricket. On the contrary, the Government of India have allowed the Board to select the national team which is then recognized by all concerned and applauded by the entire nation including at times by the highest of the dignitaries when they win tournaments and bring laurels home. Those distinguishing themselves in the international arena are conferred highest civilian awards like the Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri apart from sporting awards instituted by the Government. Such is the passion for this game in this country that cricketers are seen as icons by youngsters, middle aged and the old alike. Any organization or entity that has such pervasive control over the game and its affairs and such powers as can make dreams end up in smoke or come true cannot be said to be undertaking any private activity. The functions of the Board are clearly public functions, which, till such time the State intervenes to takeover the same, remain in the nature of public functions, no matter discharged by a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act. Suffice it to say that if the Government not only allows an autonomous/private body to discharge functions which it could in law takeover or regulate but even lends its assistance to such a nongovernment body to undertake such functions which by their very nature are public functions, it cannot be said that the functions are not public functions or that the entity discharging the same is not answerable on the standards generally applicable to judicial review of State action. Our answer to question No.1, therefore, is in the negative, qua, the first part and affirmative qua the second. BCCI may not be State under Article 12 of the Constitution but is certainly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 6 of the Constitution of India.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.