Legal Status of BCCI & Enforcement of Writ Petition

The Indian Premier League Council (“IPL”) Council (“Council”) was established by the Board of CricketControl of India (“BCCI”)to facilitate and govern the selection process of cricketers every season of the IPL. This Council consists of representation from BCCI, nominated members from the Indian Cricketer’s Association, a non-profit recognized by the BCCI.

A writ petition was maintainable against the BCCI under the Rahul Mehra case [1] however, this petition was withdrawn by Mr. Jadeja and the dispute was ultimately settled by an arbitrator with the case not being held as a precedent.

In the Zee Telefilms case [2], the Supreme Court of India had already established that for invoking a write, Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for the violation of a fundamental right, in this case, being Article 15, proving protection against discrimination, to be admissible in court, the pre-requisite of BCCI being proven to be a “State” within the meaning of Article 12. Only in situations that involve State action can the violation of fundamental rights be protected. The BCCI is a registered association under the Tamil Nadu Registration Act, 1975. To determine the legal status of BCCI, the“Dependency” test was applied in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology[3], wherein BCCI did not depend on the Government of India (“GoI”) for any financial, functional, or administrative resources for its operations which declared the organization to not be a State with no writ petition against the BCCI to be maintainable. This was later reaffirmed in A.C Muthiah v. BCCI [4] where BCCI was declared as a private autonomous body.

However, it was argued that BCCI enjoys a government-recognized monopoly for all cricket-related operations in India. It was held that BCCI does perform a public function based on the conducting of all cricket-related operations at state and national levels but with reference to Mr. Rahul Mehra’s case, the High Court of Delhi, and the Supreme Court of India has been silent on the legal status of the BCCI.

The Council can always defend themselves by stating that their decisions are legal and compliant with Article 6 of IPL’s Anti-Discrimination Code for Players & Team Officials [5]. The ICA is a non-profit that can claim good faith for the presumption to be skewered in their favor.

Given the legal status of the BCCI and the burned of proof for nepotism/favoritism being quite difficult in India when coupled with the limited nature of the information available for us, it is advised not to proceed with legal action of this nature due to the high possibility of it being dismissed on grounds of locus standi, procedure, and precedent.

It is recommended that to take solace in knowing that the evolution of precedent has led to the establishment of the Justice Lodha Committee [6] to bring reforms in BCCI because the enormous power of the BCCI demands transparency and accountability in the administration and is required to ensure fairness and good faith in its activities.

[1] Supra Note 33, para 4, ref to Ajay Jadeja case.

[2] (2005) 4 SCC 649.

[3] (2002) 5 SCC 111 at 40.

[4] (2011) 6 SCC 617.

[5] Effective as of March 1, 2020.

[6] BCCI v. Association of Bihar (2017) 370 SCC.

Art: "A Country Cricket Match" by John Roberston Reid.