Is BCCI a State Under Article 12?

In this context, the debate over whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) falls under the term “State” is of great importance as BCCI is the principal governing body of Cricket. It holds a considerable amount of influence over the sport and often overlaps with the rights of individuals. In the context of cricket, BCCI represents India at the international level and holds significant influence in the country. Its classification as a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution is a matter of public importance, as it employs numerous individuals who must be aware of their rights if BCCI is deemed a State.

Understanding Article 12

According to Article 12, “State” includes:

• The Government and the Parliament of India;
• The Government and Legislature of each of the States, and;
• All local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government.

There’s a great difference between a normal authority and an authority termed a “State” according to Article 12. The major difference is regarding the applicability of Fundamental Rights as enshrined under PART III of the Constitution. Fundamental Rights are primarily enforceable against the ‘State’ and its instrumentalities, rather than private individuals or bodies, as elucidated in Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India, 1952 AIR 59.

A body classified as a ‘State’ would have to abide by the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. If it violates these rights, it may face legal consequences, including judicial review under Articles 32 and 226. Suppose your rights have been infringed by a local authority which does not fall under the term ‘State’, then you may not be able to enforce your rights against that authority because the said authority is not duty-bound to be responsible for any of the infringement of the Rights as mentioned under Part III of the Constitution.

BCCI: An Overview

Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is the apex governing body of the sport of cricket in India. BCCI was established in the year 1928 and was subsequently registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. BCCI has its headquarters situated in Mumbai and BCCI is the wealthiest cricket board in the world. Every state has a State Cricket Association like the Kerela Cricket Association, Bihar Cricket Association, Punjab Cricket Association, Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association etc. These state associations are recognized and registered under BCCI and not under the State or Central Government. Some associations are registered under certain Acts like the Societies Act, Companies Act etc. and some are not. BCCI acts as a consortium of all these State cricket associations in these state associations to become BCCI-recognized members by registering themselves under the Board of Control for Cricket in India.

With India being the hub of cricket in the world, BCCI holds a whooping overall earning of Rs. 20,686 crores. BCCI will earn around 40% of the total revenue generated by the ICC in the period 2024-27, making it the largest influential cricket board in the world which shares the maximum earnings of ICC. Now, a prudent person would have easily understood the importance, the BCCI holds in India depending upon its wealth and international influence and that’s why it’s really important to determine whether BCCI falls under the ambit of ‘State’ as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution.

BCCI As a State

With the growing importance and influence of BCCI at both national and international levels, it became really important to delve into the debate of whether BCCI is a State or not. It was the year 2005 when the case named Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649, came up before the Supreme Court which marked the end to the debate with the judiciary giving its clarity and reasoning as to why BCCI is not a State under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The brief facts of the above-stated case go like this; there was a contract between Zee Telefilms and BCCI which gave Zee Films exclusive telecast rights for 4 years. However, due to some issue, the board terminated the contract with Zee Telefilms and for the same Zee Films approached to Supreme Court against BCCI accusing them of violating Article 14 of the constitution by arbitrarily terminating the said contract.

So, the main issue before the court was whether BCCI is a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution because a state can only be held responsible for the violation of Fundamental Rights and not against private entities. The court relied on the case Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, [Appeal (Civil) 992 of 2002], in which Justice Ruma Pal taking reference to the Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., [1981 SCR (2) 79], laid down guidelines for an authority to be termed as a ‘State’.

1. Function: The function of the body should be public.
2. Finance: The finances of the body must be governed by the central government i.e. funding, regulations and usage should be done by the government.
3. Administration: Members of the body must be from central and state government and they should actively participate in the body.

Applying the guidelines of J. Ruma Pal; the court found that:

• The function of BCCI is public i.e. representing India at the international level in the sport of cricket.
• The finances of BCCI didn’t have any involvement of the government.
• The central government nominates 2-3 members in BCCI but these members are passive and they do not actively take part in the functioning of the body. Hence, the administration of BCCI is not controlled by the government.

So, the Supreme Court in its judgement held that BCCI is not a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and and cannot be subjected to proceedings under Article 32. Hence, BCCI the apex governing body of the sport of cricket, is a private body in India.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams