This article was written by Nimisha Dublish. In this article, we are going to analyse the case of Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005) and address the issue of whether BCCI could be considered a State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, given its huge influence on cricket and its regulation. 

Introduction 

Sports have crossed global boundaries and have become a part of the discussion around the globe. The globalisation of cricket has led to the establishment of international sports federations/councils such as the International Cricket Council (ICC), which regulate cricket at the global level. The ICC is the apex body that governs cricket globally and is also responsible for framing rules and regulations to ensure the integrity, discipline and development of cricket around the globe. It mainly emphasises player conduct, anti-corruption measures and promotional aspects of cricket in different nations.  

If we talk about the Indian scenario, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) holds the governance and regulation of cricket both domestically and internationally. BCCI is responsible for the regulation of cricket at the grassroots level, national level, international level and private cricket like IPL as well. However, determining the relationship between the ICC and BCCI is crucial to the body’s work for the governance and regulation of cricket. BCCI holds dominance within Indian cricket and has influence over the decisions made globally. 

Download Now

There has been a non-transparent system for the selection given by the BCCI. This process is considered highly secretive. The decisions of the national-level selectors were deemed to be final and binding. This led to many broken dreams for aspiring cricketers. The Supreme Court has held that BCCI, despite being a private body, is answerable to the judicial review process and is subject to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. BCCI may not be a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was eventually held that the sports federations do not come under the purview of Article 12 and are not eligible to be referred to as “State” as per the Constitutional provisions. The National Sports Development Code of India (NSCI) was issued in 2011 to bring transparency to administrative functions. It consists of the rules and regulations that are to be complied with while selecting the national team for any particular sport mentioned therein. 

Details of the case

Case name: Zee Telefilms Ltd & Anr V. Union Of India & Others

Case no.:  Writ Petition (Civil)  541 of 2004 

Type of case: Civil

Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P.Singh, H.K.Sema, S.B. Sinha

Date of the judgement: 2 February, 2005

Equivalent citations: (2005) 4 SCC 649

Name of the parties: Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. (Petitioner) and Union of India & Ors. (Respondents)

Laws involved in the case: Constitution of India (Article 12, Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 32 and Article 226)

What is Zee Telefilms case all about

Article 226 of the Constitution of India gives the High Courts an expansive power to issue writs. However, this power can be invoked for the enforcement of fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in the case of Zee Telefilms v. Union of India held that the BCCI is not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore not amenable to Article 32. It introduced a new conundrum with respect to Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the person aggrieved by the activities of BCCI can approach the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution and can accordingly claim remedies for the violation of their rights. This act enabled the High Courts to issue writs to non-state entities as well. This case formed the basis of the “private body exercising public function test,” which will be discussed further in this article. It is a matter of discussion whether this type of interpretation is pragmatic and intellectually defensible or not. 

Facts of the case

In this case, Zee Telefilms is the petitioner, which is a world-renowned sports channel. The respondents in this case are the Union of India, BCCI (the regulating body for cricket in India), and ESPN (a world-renowned sports channel in the United States). 

The events trace back to 7th August 2004 when the BCCI invited tenders. These tenders were invited for the auction of exclusive rights to telecast for 4 years in a row. Both Zee and ESPN gave their bids for the same. After various rounds of negotiations with both Zee and ESPN, BCCI accepted Zee’s bid. The bid was worth $260,756,756.76, i.e., equivalent to INR 12,060,000,000/-. By agreeing to the terms and conditions, Zee made an initial deposit of $20 million. 

When ESPN filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court against Zee, the BCCI cancelled the telecast rights of Zee. Subsequently, ESPN also withdrew the petition filed on 21st September 2004. As a result, Zee approached the Supreme Court, aggrieved by the BCCI’s cancellation of the telecast rights. The termination of the contract was arbitrary and was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The preliminary issue of the maintainability of the petition was raised under Article 32 of the Constitution of India because the board is not a “State” within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. 

The BCCI was not created by a statute. The share capital is not held by the Government of India. This means that there is no financial assistance given by the Government to cover the whole expenditure of the Board. Though the Board enjoys its monopoly in the field of cricket, this status is not given by the State. BCCI is an autonomous body and was not created by the transfer of government-owned corporations.  

Issues

  1. What is “State” as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India?
  2. Whether the private entities exercising public functions come within the purview of Article 12?
  3. Whether the Writ Petition against the BCCI is maintainable or not?
  4. Whether the BCCI is a “State” under Article 12 or not?

Petitioner’s contention

The arguments from the petitioner’s side were presented by Advocate Harish Salve. They contended on the issue of why the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) should be considered as a “State” within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution. It was contended that the BCCI holds a dominant position in the field of cricket and this can be inferred from its exclusive control over cricket which includes domestic as well as international cricket. Domestic matches like the IPL and Ranji Trophy are controlled and regulated by the BCCI itself. This shows that BCCI has a monopoly in India. The players who are going to represent India are also in the hands of the BCCI. He contended that since cricket is a profession, the BCCI has the authority to regulate it, even if it means interfering with the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, i.e., the freedom to express any occupation, trade or business. 

BCCI has control over all types of cricket tournaments taking place in India and without its permission, no tournament can be organised. BCCI performs one of the most important public functions of the country and it is done with the permission and authorisation of the Government of India. This is the reason why the BCCI is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. 

The government initially took the stand that it doesn’t control the BCCI. However, it was contended that the selection of players is done with the due permission of the government whenever a foreign team visits India. Further, it was stated that the intention of constitution framers was to incorporate Article 12 of the Constitution of India to treat these kinds of authorities, which are created by law and have certain powers, to make rules and regulations to be included in the term “other authorities.”

In the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975), the Court held that bodies like ONGC and LIC, which are created by virtue of statute because of the nature of the functions they perform, shall come under the head of “other authorities.” In this case, the scope of the term “other authorities” was expanded by the court. These authorities come under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, even though the functions they perform are of a commercial nature. 

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravadi (1980), tests for the functionality, instrumentality and agency of government were accepted in this case. The Court in this case further held that the societies made under the Societies Registration Act can also be an instrument of the state and can come under the head of “other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 

Even though BCCI is not under the direct control of the government, its control over cricket, authority over players and tournaments, financial ties with the government, and similarity of functions to the government make it eligible to be counted as “other authorities” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 

Respondent’s contention

The arguments from the respondent’s side were presented by Advocate KK Venugopal. The status and autonomy of the BCCI were protected by presenting several arguments. It was contended that the BCCI was formed under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act (1975). This implies that it is a society that operates as an independent entity separate from government interference. It has its own rules and regulations, rather than being directly controlled or owned by the government. The decision-making of the BCCI is done without the interference of the government, highlighting its autonomy of powers. 

It was further contended that the BCCI never accepted any form of financial assistance from the government and has always remained independent of state control. BCCI has attained this monopoly in the market by getting “first movers advantage,” and this status is not granted by the state. 

It was stated that in order to adopt the principle of equality, the other national sports associations must also fall under the same category as the BCCI. It was further contended that If only BCCI will be treated as a “State” then it would become unfair for the entities/federations that govern other national sports. Hence, to give equal treatment to all sports federations it is better to not declare BCCI as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 

Public function test

The case of Zee Telefilms acts as a guiding tool for many aggrieved petitioners who approached the High Courts for actions against private bodies. The Supreme Court has successively applied the public functions test to the private bodies to determine their amenability to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case of Zee, the issue relates to the enforcement of fundamental rights against non-state entities via public functions test under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was established in the case that although the existing remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not available to the non-state entities under Article 12 of the Constitution, however remedies under Article 226 can be claimed against non-state entities performing public functions. 

Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of those aggrieved. This implies that these writs can be issued against the private bodies as well. But this also means that the Supreme Court can issue the writs against only the entities that are State under Article 12 of the Constitution. This type of interpretation will lead to illogical solutions. So a different way to interpret the same is by arguing that the judgement of Zee holds the private entities that exercise public functions, accountable to general public law standards of fairness, equality and non arbitrariness, instead of holding them liable/accountable directly to the fundamental rights obligation.

The case of Zee has reaffirmed the test and its stature in the Indian Constitution. WIth the passage of time the test has gained relevance and is being recognised as evidence to prove whether an entity is a State or not. However, the tests are not devoid of shortcomings, there exists certain confusion as well or we can say certain grey areas. For instance, there exists confusion in the nature of obligations that fall upon the entity performing public functions. The meaning of ‘public function’ itself is not clear. It is interpreted by the Courts in a way that it complements and solidifies the Court’s liberal approach of granting Article 226 remedies. It’s the most reasonable approach to adopt to protect an individual’s rights.

The Court took into account the general job of BCCI in cricket to identify whether that comes under the purview of public function or not. It was established that the BCCI lays down the rules, regulations, guidelines, standards, procedure of selection and acts leading to violation. All these things are specific to cricket. BCCI also provides certain benefits to the players including pension and management of staff, mentors, coaches and team. However, there are certain obligations that are required to be performed by any entity. The obligation to act decently is innate in the body that acts with such a huge force. Such an obligation can be envisioned only under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The classification of an authority into “other authority” falls within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, there are certain tests to determine this functionality of an entity. The public function test seeks the private bodies that perform functions of the public entity i.e., state functions; in these circumstances, they could be termed as State actors.

In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, a detailed guideline was formed and an in-depth test was written to determine whether a body is a state or not, for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was held that societies registered under the Societies Registration Act can also be an instrument of the State under “other authorities” of Article 12 of the Constitution.  

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1980)

Facts

In this case, there was a dispute regarding the admission procedure at Regional Engineering College in Srinagar. The college falls under the category of “societies” under the government in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. They receive funds from both the central and state governments. The government is also involved in the management and administration, including the recruitment of faculty and staff. 

The petitioner in this case applied for admission to the college. The petitioner said that the admissions process was conducted unfairly and that his suitability for admission was not assessed accurately. The questions were not related to the course. 

Issues

  1. Whether the colleges come under the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution or not?
  2. Whether the admission process is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or not?
  3. Whether the present writ is maintainable or not?

Judgment

The Court ruled in favour of the petitioner and held that the present writ is maintainable under Article 12 of the Constitution. This affirmed that the college falls well within the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution, under the category of “other authorities”. Justice P. N. Bhagwati laid down a six-factor test, also known as the public functionality test. The following factors must be kept in mind and must be applied while looking at whether an authority or entity should be covered under “other authorities’ under the head of State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India-

  1. Whether the share capital is held by the government or not. Does the government hold any part or whole of the entity or authority or not?
  2. Whether there is any financial aid or assistance received from the State or not?
  3. Whether the entity enjoys a monopoly status that is granted by the State or is at least protected by the State or not? 
  4. Whether the functions of the entity or authority are of public importance and are closely linked to governmental activities or not?
  5. Whether there is significant state control over the entity or not?
  6. Whether the department of government has been transferred to that entity or authority or not?

This six-factor test serves as a guiding principle in determining the status of the entity and whether or not it can be regarded as an instrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

Criminal litigation

This case was one of the landmark judgments in the history of constitutional law and especially revolved around the ambiguity of Article 12 of the Constitution. In the present case also, Pradeep Kumar’s case was highly referred to and relied upon. The case overruled the judgement of Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975) and delved deeper into the administrative and functional aspects of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Ultimately, it was held that CSIR does come under the purview of the State as mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 

Facts

In this case, a petition was filed based on Sabhajit Tewary’s case. Sabhajit Tewary was a junior stenographer who worked for CSIR. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. He claimed that there should be uniformity in the remunerations given to stenographers who were newly recruited by CSIR in 1972. However, his claim was denied by a Constitution Bench and it was held that CSIR is not a State as per Article 12. This petition was not maintainable. 

Now, appellants in the present case filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court and challenged the termination of their services by a unit of CSIR. The contentions that were raised were similar to those of Sabhajit Tewary. Further, an appeal by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Supreme Court of India. The two judges bench further referred the matter to the 7 judges constitutional bench. 

Issue

Whether CSIR falls under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution or not?

Judgment

The Court was of the view that CSIIR was dominated by the government. Let it be financially, functionally or administratively as well, it was all governed and controlled by the government of India. These controls were also deep and pervasive in nature. CSIIR was a body created by the government to carry out and organise the work that was earlier done by the Department of Commerce of the Central Government. 

CSIIR was set up to serve the national interest and the economic welfare of society. It was set up to excel in the planned industrial development of the country. It was also noticed that 70% of the funds of CSIR were available from grants made by the Government of India. Therefore, the writ was maintainable and CSIR was covered under the definition of State under Article 12. The Court considered the authority to be well within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. 

Judgment

Court’s view on whether BCCI is covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not

The Court held that BCCI would not be covered under the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court was of the view that the Board does not come under the purview of six legal tests laid down by the Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology. These six legal tests have to be surpassed to be considered as a “State” under Article 12. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas, the Court considered all the previous precedents and interpreted the term “other authorities” for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution. The judgement was aimed at removing all the confusion regarding what authorities or entities should be considered as “State” and what not. This confusion used to arise earlier because the definition of State was very exhaustive and limited to only those authorities, which can be read as Ejusdem Generis with the authorities mentioned in the definition itself in Article 12. 

The Court further elaborated by saying that if the Board is treated as a State under Article 12 then that will have its consequences. This would imply that other national sports federations should also be covered under the purview of Article 12. The federations which represent India on International Forums in the field of art, culture, music, dance, etc., will also be required to come well within the purview of the State as per Article 12. This act will lead to the opening of floodgates to litigation under Article 32. Hence, if the Board for Cricket is considered a State then there will be no reason why other organisations in a similar position may not be considered a State as well. The mere fact that cricket is the most famous sport in India does not make it different from other federations/organisations. It has been clearly stated by the Court and has also been clearly mentioned in the Constitution that any distinction based on the body’s popularity, finances, or public opinion would be considered a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Board cannot be considered as “other authorities” under Article 12 of the Constitution. Also, none of the other federations or organisations, including the board, shall be considered as “State” for the purposes of Article 12. 

Court’s view on the monopoly status of BCCI

The Court further commented on the monopoly of the Board in the economy of India. The Court understands that BCCI holds immense authority over everything that falls under the category of cricket. Whether it be selecting and preparing cricketers or organising matches at grassroots levels like the Duleep Trophy or Ranji Trophy, everything is done and managed by the Board itself. Even the selection of teams and umpires for the international level of competition is done by the Board. But all of this does not mean that other organisations cannot do so. There is no bar on any other organisation from forming a similar organisation and performing similar functions. There is no monopoly status granted to BCCI either by statute or by the government. It holds a monopoly only because of its first movers’ advantage and the fact that it is the only organisation controlling cricket in India. Any other organisation can also be formed and can organise matches and neither the government nor BCCI could raise any objections. A classic example of this is Subhash Chandra (owner of Zee Films), who started recruiting domestic and foreign players to play in the Indian Cricket League in exchange for big sums of money. 

However, the Indian Cricket League turned out to be a failure because it was not able to capture the imagination and aspirations of Indian cricket fans. This was mainly due to three reasons. First, they were declared rebels by the BCCI as soon as players signed up for the tournaments. Second, it failed to get big Indian superstars on board. Third is its inability to move to different venues for hosting matches. If it had been successful, then it could have demolished BCCI’s monopoly and given it tough competition. But from the situation above, it has become very clear that in the future, similar organisations with better planning can come up and compete with the BCCI. This acts as a continuous reminder for BCCI to keep maintaining its high standards at both home and abroad grounds by hiring more enthusiastic players and maintaining its status. 

Court’s view on if there was a violation of Article 19(1)(g)

The court then moved on to discuss whether the monopoly of BCCI violates the cricketer’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) or not. The court considered the petitioner’s contention that the powers that the Board holds are all pervasive and have control over a person’s cricket career. Since the BCCI holds a monopoly in the market, it is the sole authority to decide a person’s membership in and affiliation with any association. It was for these reasons that the petitioner wanted BCCI to be considered a State. But the Court in this contention said that if this argument were to be held valid, then in that case every employer that governs how his employees work shall also be considered a State. The Court further elaborated by saying that although the rules made by BCCI prohibit Indian cricketers from participating in tournaments of similar format outside India, they also allow them to play first-class and List A matches outside India. If the players are allowed to participate in global tournaments of similar formats, then there will be very few players left to play domestic cricket. Hence, the Court disagreed that the BCCI violated the cricketer’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Critical analysis

The case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) deals with the intricacies involved between the private entities and the public functions they perform. The case particularly dealt with the status of the BCCI as a State or not. There were several contentions put forth by both petitioners and respondents. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the BCCI qualifies as a “State” for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not. Given that the BCCI has a significant influence on cricket and its regulation in India, should it be granted the status of a “State” or not? 

The petitioners were of the view that the BCCI holds a dominant position in the cricket landscape, controls both domestic and international cricket, and has authority over players and their selection, rendering it eligible to be considered as a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. However, the respondents contended that if BCCI is granted the status of a “State” under Article 12 then it would set a precedent for other national sports federations also to be considered as a “State” for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that the BCCI operates autonomously under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and hence has no direct government control over it. 

The Supreme Court held that the BCCI does not meet the criteria of being a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Despite its influence and control over cricket, it operates independently and receives no financial aid from the government as well. The Supreme Court also emphasised the need for equal treatment of all sports federations and rejected differential treatment based on popularity. The Court also dismissed the claims of fundamental rights being violated, as other organisations can also enter the cricket domain. The case reaffirmed the principles laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology.  The case laid down certain factors which were required to be fulfilled for an entity to come under the purview of a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 

The case highlights the challenges in regulating influential bodies like the BCCI. While the decision of the Supreme Court of India emphasised BCCI’s autonomy and lack of direct government control, by not classifying BCCI as a “State” under Article 12, the ruling left room for exploitation. Overall, the case emphasised the need for transparency and reform in sports governance to ensure fairness and accountability.  

Law Commission’s recommendation to bring BCCI under the RTI Act

The Law Commission of India has recommended bringing the BCCI under the ambit of the Right to Information Act (2005) (RTI Act). The Commission is of the view that the BCCI, despite having a private status, performs several functions that are akin to those of a State. The Commission highlights that BCCI receives substantial financial support from the government in the form of tax exemption and land grants. This further blurs the difference between the public and private entities. The report says that the BCCI enjoyed tax exemption of thousands of crores. Between the period of 1997-2007, the total tax exemption given to the BCCI was Rs. Twenty-one billion six hundred eighty-three million two hundred thirty-seven thousand four hundred eighty-nine. From 2007-2008 onwards the registration of BCCI under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act (1961), as a charitable trust, was withdrawn. 

The report further elaborated that the BCCI exercises state-like powers which affect the fundamental rights of the stakeholders, guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It was recommended that BCCI be viewed as an agency or instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, thereby making it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It was mentioned in the report that the BCCI shall be held liable for the violations of the basic human rights of the stakeholders. The panel was of the view that the Indian cricket team sportswear contains the national colours and Ashoka Chakra is also there on the helmets. BCCI is not a national sports federation but still nominates cricketers for the Arjuna Awards. It is because of all these reasons that the panel recommends that BCCI virtually act as a national sports federation.

The application of the RTI Act to the BCCI would enable the people to assess the critical information relating to the BCCI’s functioning, operations, finances and decision-making. This will lead to further accountability and transparency. However, after the recommendations made by the Law Commission, there were several critiques of it. Certain questions were raised regarding the autonomy of the sports federation. It was argued by the critics that if BCCI comes under the RTI’s scrutiny then this may encroach upon its autonomy and put a bar on its ability to function effectively. The Law Commission only seeks to address the regulatory gaps and ensure uniform regulation of sports federations. However, the recommendations made by the Law Commission are not binding. This is a significant step by the Law Commission towards enhancing transparency in sports. The final decision is with the government to assess it and decide whether the BCCI should be subjected to such scrutiny or not. 

Conclusion

The case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) played a significant role in deciding the role of the BCCI in the field of cricket. The landmark case delved into the intersection between private entities and the public functions they perform. Article 12 of the Constitution of India was further interpreted in this case and its application to non-state entities was also determined. 

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the BCCI does not fall under the category of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Despite having a huge influence on the people’s cricketing career and its monopoly status, it was not to be considered a State. This was because of various reasons, such that it was independent of government interference and was not given this monopoly status by any government or by any statute. The name and reputation that BCCI currently holds are due to its first movers’ advantage and its consistent efforts to maintain its standards in the world of cricket. Also, it didn’t satisfy the six-factor test laid down in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology.

The Court ensured that all sports federations would be treated equally and it should reject differential treatment based on popularity or public opinion. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the meaning of Ejusdem Generis?

Ejusdem Generis is a Latin phrase which means ‘of the same kind’. It means where general words or phrases follow some specific words or phrases, the general words are specifically construed as limited and apply only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those expressly mentioned.

What was the significance of the Zee Telefilms case?

The case was a landmark in deciding the role of BCCI and despite its monopoly in the country, it was still not to be considered a State as that would be unfair to other sports federations. It did not fulfil the six-factor test and it did not have any governmental support.

What did the Supreme Court say about BCCI being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India?

The Supreme Court ruled that BCCI does not meet the criteria of being called a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India due to its autonomy and lack of governmental control.

What did the Supreme Court say about BCCI’s influence on the cricketer’s career?

The Supreme Court dismissed the claims that BCCI’s authority violated the cricketer’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 

Was the public function test considered in the Zee Telefilms case? 

The public functions test acted as a guiding light in determining whether BCCI could be considered as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not. The Supreme Court held that it shall not be considered a State under Article 12 as it does not fulfil the six-factor test or public functionality test.

How did the Zee Telefilms case impact the regulatory framework of sports federations in India?

The case focussed on the need for equal treatment of sports federations and it would be unfair if BCCI was given the status of a State and others were not. It emphasised the transparency of administrative functions given under the National Sports Development Code of India (NSCI).

Who gave a dissenting opinion in this case and why?

Justice Sinha gave a dissenting opinion in this case. He was of the opinion that the Board acted as a representative of the Government before the international community and hence it shall be referred to as State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here