Question

Given below is the statement of Legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Any institution or body can be a 'State' if it is created under the constitution or a statute, or if it is substantially financed by the Government, or the Government holds its share capital.
FACTUAL STRUCTURAL: K approached the High court by filing a writ petition against the Board for Control of Cricket in India( BCCI). The argument advanced was that BCCI is a 'State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India. The question is whether the argument is acceptable?
DECISION:

पर्याय

• Yes, because the Board has a monopoly on cricket in India.

• No, because the monopoly on cricket is neither State conferred nor State protected.

• No, because the control of the government on BCCI, if any, is only regulatory.

• No, because neither the Board is created under a statute nor any part of the share capital of the Board is held by the government and no financial assistance is given by the government to the Board.

Answer 1

No, because neither the Board is created under a statute nor any part of the share capital of the Board is held by the government and no financial assistance is given by the government to the Board.

Explanation:

In Zee Telefilms Ltd and Anr vs. Union of India and  Ors case in 2005 Apex Court elaborately discussed the position of BCCI as an instrumentality of  State under Article 12. Court squarely applied the test in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and held that since BCCI is not financially,  functionally and administratively controlled by government cumulatively and so it cannot be held as a  State and thus writ petition under Article 12 is not maintainable. Later in Muthiahs Case Supreme Court reaffirmed the decision in Zee Telefilms Case and it was held categorically that BCCI is a "private autonomous body and its actions have to be judged only like any other similar authority exercising public functions". The  Court also rejected the claim that every entity regulating the fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (g) is a  'State' within the meaning of Article 12. It was held that the functions of the Board do not amount to public functions.