BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) 3 SCC 251

BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar case addressed the legal status of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and its liability arising from the alleged misuse of power. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India examined whether the BCCI could be classified as a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and whether it was subject to judicial review under Article 226.

Facts of BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar

• Formation of IPL and Amendments by BCCI: In 2007, BCCI launched the Indian Premier League (IPL). During a meeting on 27th September 2008, Mr. N. Srinivasan was appointed as BCCI Secretary. In the same meeting, Regulation 6.2.4 was amended to exclude IPL and Champions League T20 from its purview.
• Spot-Fixing Allegations: In April 2013, the Delhi Police uncovered spot-fixing in the IPL and filed charges against two individuals.
• Constitution of Probe Committee: BCCI formed a committee led by Shri Sanjay Jagdale and two retired judges from the Madras High Court to investigate the issue. Following Shri Jagdale’s resignation, the probe committee consisted solely of the retired judges.
• Legal Challenge: The Cricket Association of Bihar filed a petition under Article 226 in the Bombay High Court. The petition challenged the constitution of the probe committee as ultra vires and sought:
  • Appointment of a commission including retired Supreme Court judges.
  • Termination of IPL franchises Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals.
  • Disciplinary action against N. Srinivasan.
• High Court’s Decision: On 30th July 2013, the Bombay High Court declared the probe committee unconstitutional as it contravened IPL operational rules (Provisions 2.2 and 6). However, the court refused to constitute a new commission under Article 226.
• Appeal to Supreme Court: Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the Cricket Association of Bihar appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Involved

The issues raised in BCCI versus Cricket Association of Bihar were:

1. Is the BCCI a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India?
2. If not, is the BCCI amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?

BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar Judgement

BCCI as a Non-Governmental Entity

The BCCI is an autonomous body, not established or controlled by the State. It operates independently with minimal financial assistance from the government.

Public Functions and Writ Jurisdiction

The BCCI enjoys monopoly status in cricket administration, recognised and supported by the government. While not classified as a “State” under Article 12, its public functions make it subject to judicial review under Article 226. Actions performed by BCCI in discharging public functions are amenable to the same scrutiny as state actions.

Public Nature of BCCI’s Activities 

The BCCI’s functions, including organising and regulating cricket, are in the public domain. Governmental support and lack of alternative regulatory frameworks underscore the public nature of its operations.

Conclusion

The BCCI is a private entity registered under a statute but wields immense power in cricket administration, with tacit governmental support. The Supreme Court in BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar clarified that:

• While the BCCI does not qualify as a “State” under Article 12, it performs public functions.
• Its actions in this capacity are subject to judicial review under Article 226.

This judgement underscored the need for accountability in entities exercising public functions, even if privately managed, ensuring they operate transparently and within the bounds of law.