LexM/S. ZEE TELE FILMS LTD. AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. ZEE TELE FILMS LTD. AND ANR. A V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 2, 2005 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.N. VARIAVA, B.P. SINC. H, rl..K. SEMA AND B S.B. SINHA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 32, 136, 141 226 and 298; Entry Nos. 45 and 97 of Union list, 33 of State list and 25 of C Concurrent List: Grant of right to telecast cricket matches for certain period inf avour of appellant by Board of Cricket Control in /ndia-Cancellation---Challenge to-- Held by the Court: Board is not an authority/other authority-Hence, writ against it not maintainable. Held, per majority : An authority must be created by statute having powers to make laws/rules/regulations could only be called as other authority in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution-However, Supreme Court could assign the term 'authority' a wider meaning by judicial interpretation to prevent D the Government from by-passing its constitutional obligations-Merely because E a non-governmental body performing some public duty that by itself would not suffice to make such a body other authority-Board is not financially! administratively/functionally under the effective control of the Government - Since Board has not been performing its functions as an authorized representative of the State, it cannot be called as an instrumentality of the State-Moreover, Central Government's control over certain activities of the F Board is regulatory in nature and, thus, cannot be termed as pervasive contra/- Hence, the Board is not an authority. Held, per minority : Constitution is an ongoing document and thus should be interpreted G liberally-Article 12 of the Constitution must receive a purposive interpretation-Board has been allowed by the Government of India to exercise enormous powers to control the game of cricket and even to trespass across the jimdamental rights of citizens-Any activity having direct influence on the 913 II 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R. A citi=ens could be idenlifled as an aclivity of Stale, and thus p11h/icfi111clions- Presence!ahsence of a pariicular eleme1111101 determi11a1ive ofcharacreristics of an aulhority, if on overall consideration it salisfies ingredients of Article 12 of the Co11stitulio11-Si11ce Board regulates and exercise comrol over the competitive crickel/members and represent a sovereign counllJ'. India, while participating in national/internaliona/ events, it is an aulhority/state-Since B the Board is performing regulatory fimctions, it could be compelled by the Court of Law to abide by rule of law-Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court! High Court could be invoked against it. Article 141-Law laid down by the Supreme Court-Applicability of C Stalutory Authority vis-a-vis public authority-Distinction between. Functioning of a body-Judicial Review-Scope of-Discussed The question which arose for consideration was as to whether the Board of Cricket Control in India falls within the definition of 'the State' D as contemplated by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was contended for the petitioners that the Board enjoys extensive powers in terms of the Memorandum and Articles of the Association, in selecting players for the Indian National Team, representing India in E cricket matches domestically and internationally; that the Board enjoys disciplinary power over the players/umpires and other officials involved in the game; that the Board exercises Governmental functions in the game of Cricket; that since playing cricket is a profession, the Board controls the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution; and that since Union of India has pervasive control over the' F activities of the Board, it could appropriately be termed as "other authority" in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution. It was contended by Respondent No.2 - Board that a petition under Article 12 of the Constitution is not maintainable against it since it is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India; tha1t G it is not created by any statute but registered under the Societies Registration Act; that it is an autonomous body, administration of which is not controlled by any other authority including Union of India; that it does not take any financial assistance from the Government nor is it subjected to any financial control by the Government nor its accounts are H subject to the scrutiny of the Government; that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.