BCCI is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India

An important question, amongst other, that arose before the Court was to determine as to whether BCCI is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 and if 19 of the Constitution of India and if it is not, whether it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

The present matter dealt with the issue pertaining to allegations of sporting frauds like match fixing and betting casting clouds on the working of the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI). There has been accusations of malpractices and conflict of interests against those holding positions of influence in the BCCI but also those owning franchises and teams competing in the IPL format.

The appeals arose out of two successive writ petitions filed in public interest by the Cricket Association of Bihar before the High Court of Bombay for several reliefs including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing BCCI to recall its order constituting a probe panel comprising two retired Judges of Madras High Court to enquire into the allegations of betting and spot fixing in the Indian Premier League (IPL). A relief was also sought to the extent of removing Mr. N. Srinivisan from the post of President of BCCI and cancellation of the franchise favouring Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals for the IPL matches to be conducted in future.

It was observed that BCCI is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 even when it is not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. The rationale underlying that view lies in the “nature of duties and functions” which the BCCI performs. It was a common ground that the Board has a complete sway over the game of cricket in the country. It regulates and controls the game to the exclusion of all others, formulates rules, regulations norms and standards covering all aspect of the game, enjoys power of choosing the members of the national team and the umpires, exercises power of disqualifying players, spends money on building and maintaining infrastructure, frames pension schemes and incurs expenditure on coaches, trainers etc., sells broadcast and telecast rights and much more. All the above activities are undertaken with the concurrence of the Central and State Government who are fully aware and supportive of the above 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.

Any organization or entity having such pervasive control over the game and its affairs cannot be said to be undertaking any private activity and thus the functions are clearly public, which, till such time the State intervenes to take over the same, remain in the nature of public functions, no matter discharged by a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act. It was accordingly held that BCCI may not be State under Article 12 of the Constitution but is certainly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court further observed that the Operational Rules indicates that every franchisee, player, team official, and/or match official are subject to the said rules. Any act of people adjudged as team officials if found guilty of misconduct adversely affect the image of the BCCI and the league as also the game and brings disrepute which could result in imposition of one or more of the sanctions stipulated under concerned Rule.

The Court, while holding that amendment to Rule 6.2.4 whereby the words ‘excluding events like IPL or Champions League Twenty 20’, were added to the said rule was declared void and ineffective, constituted committed which would examine and make suitable recommendations on the following aspects:

(i)   Amendments considered necessary to the memorandum of association of the BCCI and the prevalent rules and regulations for streamlining the conduct of elections to different posts/officers in the BCCI including conditions of eligibility and disqualifications, if any, for candidates wanting to contest the election for such posts including the office of the president of the BCCI.
(ii)   Amendments to the memorandum of association, and rules and regulation considered necessary to provide a mechanism for resolving conflict of interest should such a conflict arise despite Rule 6.2.4 prohibiting creation or holding of any commercial interest by the administrators, with particular reference to persons, who by virtue of their proficiency in the game of Cricket, were to necessarily play some role as Coaches, Managers, Commentators etc.
(iii)   Amendment, if any, to the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations of BCCI to carry out the recommendations of the Probe Committee headed by Justice Mudgal, subject to such recommendations being found acceptable by the newly appointed Committee.
(iv)   Any other recommendation with or without suitable amendment of the relevant Rules and Regulations, which the Committee may consider 134 necessary to make with a view to preventing sporting frauds, conflict of interests, streamlining the working of BCCI to make it more responsive to the expectations of the public at large and to bring transparency in practices and procedures followed by BCCI.

The committee would also decide on the quantum of punishment to be imposed on Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra as also their respective franchisees/teams/owners of the teams found guilty of misconduct and betting.

[BCCI vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.]
(SC, 22.01.2015)