ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA (2005) 4 SCC 649

ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA (2005) 4 SCC 649

 

FACTS

Zee Telefilms Ltd. (the first petitioner), is one of the largest vertically integrated media entertainment groups in India. The Board of Control for Cricket in India i.e. BCCI (the second respondent), is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act recognised by the Union of India, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. Multiple entertainment groups including the petitioners and the fifth respondent (ESPN) gave their respective offers when tenders for exclusive television rights were invited. During negotiations, the board decided to select the tender of the former and the first petitioner agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the board. The fifth respondent subsequently decided to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.

 

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case reflected whether BCCI was a “state” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. This Hon'ble court by a majority of 3:2 declined to accept the Board of Control for Cricket in India or BCCI (a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975) as "the State '' under Article 12.
2. It was observed that even though the majority followed Pradeep Biswas and earlier cases on agency or instrumentality test and recognised that some of the fundamental rights are available even against "non-State actions including individuals", it held that "the pre-requisite for invoking the enforcement of a fundamental right under Article 32 is that the violator of that right should be a State first".
3. The court observed that relief against the BCCI could be available in High Courts under Article 226, but not in the Supreme Court under Article 32. One of the reasons for such a decision was the Workload within the court. It was also observed that Article 32 was still available against the violation of any fundamental right including the ones which are guaranteed against non-State bodies or private individuals. The minority decision in this case emphasised on the functions test and even pleaded for the rejection of agency or instrumentality tests.
4. It was concluded that within the facts of the case, the majority decision could be justified, but in line with the widening application of the fundamental rights and the need to protect human dignity from all invasions, functions and other suitable tests must be evolved and applied.