Supreme Court dismisses Zee's petition

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by Zee Telefilms contesting the manner in which the Indian board cancelled the telecast rights after awarding them to Zee. In its verdict, the court announced that the BCCI could not be called a state, according to the definition of the term in the Indian constitution, nor could a writ petition be filed against it for violation of fundamental rights.

According to a report by the Press Trust of India, the court ruled that while some element of public duty was involved in selecting the Indian team, it wasn't enough make the BCCI a state. "The Indian government had failed to prove that it has given de facto recognition to the cricket board for discharging these functions. In the absence of any such authorisation, if a private board discharges these functions, it would be not be proper for the court to hold the same body as an instrumentality of the state."

The court also pointed out that if the cricket board was termed a state, then all other sports bodies would need to be declared states too. "The board cannot be singly identified as a state for the purpose of Article 12," the bench observed, saying that it would be in violation of the right to equality. The five-member bench passed its verdict by a 3-2 majority.

A five-judge constitution bench - Justices N Santosh Hegde, SN Variava, BP Singh, HK Sema and SB Sinha - handed down the ruling. While Justices Hegde, Singh and Sema contended that the BCCI was not a state, Justices Variava and Sinha were of the view that the board could be considered one under the ambit of article 12 of the Indian constitution.

Explaining the majority view, Justice Hegde noted that the Indian government had not passed any laws or statutes vesting authority in the BCCI to select the Indian team. According to him, the control exercised by the government over the BCCI could best be termed "regulatory", not enough to have the organisation declared as a state.

However, the court also stated that any complaints against the BCCI could still be made to the High Court under article 226, which had a much wider scope and wasn't restricted only to bodies which could be classified states.

The BCCI had earlier agreed to a US$308 million, four-year deal with Zee for the telecast of all cricket matches in India, but it reversed its decision after being challenged in court by ESPN-Star, who had bid unsuccessfully for the rights. The BCCI then went on to grant the telecast rights for the India-Australia series to Sony. Zee had contested both these decisions in the Supreme Court.