Constitution of India – Article 12 – whether the body is Agency or the instrumentality of the state – Petition filed by the petitioner against BCCI and in from this a question arises Can BCCI be declared as a state under Article 12 of the constitution of India--- petition Allowed.
CASE- ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. AND ANOTHER’S ..................PETITIONER
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS...................RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY – SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
The petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution of India on the ground that body is agency or the instrumentality of the state and order passed by the BCCI cancelling a contract of broadcasting rights was Violative of Article 14 of the constitution. This case is popularly known as BCCI case.
Whether BCCI held to be a state under or within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India.
Article 12, Article 19 (1)(g), Article 32, Article 14 of the constitution of India.
REFERRED CASE LAWS
Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (AIR 1967 SC 1857) In this case it was held by the five judges’ bench that the electricity board be held to be a state under article 12 of the constitution for the reason that it was created by statute and controlled by the government.
University of Madras v. Santa Bai and Anr.( AIR 1959 MADRAS 67) A Constitutional bench of the court held that the expression ‘ other authorities ‘ is wide enough to include within it every authority created by a statute on which powers are conferred to carryout governmental or quasi – governmental functions and functioning within the territory of India or under the control of Government of India.
- The tests propounded for determining as to when a corporation or a board can be held to be an instrumentality or the agency of the government are given in case of Pradeep kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of chemical.
1. One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or an agency of a government.
2. Where the financial assistance of the state is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation it would be offered some indication of the corporation being impregnated with the government characters.
3. It may also be a relevant factor with the corporation enjoy the Monopoly which is a state conferred or state protected.
4. Existence of deep and pervasive state control mean afford an indication that the corporation is a state agency or instrumentality.
5. If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to the governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of the government.
6. If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to the governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of the government.
Considering all the facts and arguments of the learned counsel from the both the sides BCCI could not be held to be a state with the meaning of the article 12 of the constitution.
The court is saying this very clearly that the BCCI could not be considered as a state for the reason that it did not fulfil the any test given in the case of Pradeep Kumar Vishwas. And after consideration of all the facts the court found that there is no control of government over the board. The court rightly held that from the arguments made by petitioner. The BCCI cannot be held as a state with the meaning of article of the constitution.
Lastly after pursuing all the facts for the region aforementioned and we of the considered view that the writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. It is ordered accordingly.