The case discusses the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Cricket Association of Bihar v. BCCI, wherein it was held that BCCI was not amenable to writ under Article 32 for violation of fundamental rights, rather it was amenable to Article 226 which could be invoked in case of violation of any legal rights including fundamental rights. After liberalization especially with the coming of IPL, BCCI emerged as the single largest and richest sporting body in India as well as in the world. It controls the game of cricket associations in India at all the levels and also makes rules and regulations touching entire aspects of the game of cricket in India. But despite this there are meager checks on the BCCI and it has led to corruption and it eventually tainted the reputation of the game of cricket in India. Several appointment and award of franchise for IPL was done in an arbitrary manner. The funds to various state governments were also given in a discriminatory manner.

In the case, the Supreme Court looked into the public functions performed by BCCI in order to ascertain whether BCCI is an instrumentality of State under the term ‘other authorities’ within Article 12 so as to invoke Article 32 against BCCI. By applying the earlier precedents on the matter like Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Union of India, Supreme Court declined to hold BCCI as a ‘state’ under Article 12, but at the same time recognized the public functions performed by it. In this background the experts in law found this decision as a stepping stone for bringing BCCI under the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12.

Law Case Studies | Case Study in Management, Operations, Strategies, Business Environment, Case Studies

PayPal (9 USD)

Issues

The case is structured to achieve the following teaching objectives:

	To understand the concept of ‘State’ as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
	To analyze the necessity to bring in private entities exercising public functions within the purview of Article 12.
	To probe into the background and judicial approach towards interpretation of Article 12.
	To study the relevance of the public interest involved in the functions performed by BCCI.

Contents

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT BCCI

THE PETITION AT THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

THE PETITION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

THE DECISION IN ZEE TELEFILMS’ CASE

THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT: A GAME CHANGER?

EXHIBITS

Keywords

Concept of ‘State’ under Article 12,Board of Cricket Control in India, Indian Premier League,‘Other authorities’,Instrumentality of State,Article 32,Article 226,Supreme Court of India,Bombay High Court,Cricket Association of Bihar,Zee Telefilm’s,Rajasthan Royals,Chennai Super kings,International Cricket Council,Public functions

INTRODUCTION - Next Page>>