Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005) - Case Analysis

Introduction of Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005)

Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005) is a landmark case in the legal landscape of India. The case centres around the interpretation of the term ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The main issue in this case was whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) which was a private regulatory body for cricket in India can be categorised as a ‘State’. The case highlights the interplay between private entities performing public functions and their accountability under constitutional law.

Download Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005)

Historical Context and Facts of Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005)

The case at hand revolves around the interpretation of the term ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and its relevance to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The following are the brief facts of the case -

Parties Involved

A globally renowned sports broadcasting channel Zee Telefilms Ltd. filed a petition against the Union of India, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and ESPN. The BCCI is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and is a regulatory body for cricket in India.

Invitation for Tenders

The BCCI on 7th August 2004 issued an invitation for tenders for the auction of exclusive telecast rights for cricket matches in India for four years. Zee Telefilms and ESPN submitted their bids for these telecast rights.

Acceptance of Bid of Zee

The BCCI after a negotiation process accepted the bid of Zee Telefilms valued at USD 260,756,756.76. Accordingly, Zee submitted a sum of Rs. 92.50 crores which was equivalent to approximately USD 20 million as a security deposit in the State Bank of Travancorea and agreed to the terms and conditions set by the BCCI.

Termination of Contract

Following this the BCCI terminated the contract awarded to Zee Telefilms without stating any justified reasons. However, the BCCI assured the Petitioner that the security deposit would be refunded immediately.

Petition Before the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the termination of contract by BCCI Zee Telefilms approached the Supreme Court. The Petitioner Zee Telefilms argued that the decision to rescind the contract was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the right to equality. The Petitioner also argued that BCCI despite being a private entity performed public functions and was subject to the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Issue addressed in Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005)

The main question which was addressed in this case was whether the BCCI is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India?

Legal Provisions involved in Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005)

In the case of Zee Telefilms Article 12 of the Indian Constitution played a significant role. The following is the analysis of this provisions -

Article 12 of the Constitution of India

According to Article 12 of the Constitution, the term “state” denotes-

• Union & State Government
• Parliament
• State Legislatures
• All Local or Other authorities

within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

The term State includes both executive and legislative organs of the Union and States.

The President of India and Governors of states can also be referred to as ‘state’ as they are a

part of the executive.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Article 14 guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Judgment and Impact of Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005)

The 5-Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Justice S.B. Sinha, S.N. Variava, Justice H.K. Sema and Justice B.P. Singh. The Supreme Court ruled that although the BCCI held a monopoly over cricket regulation in India but this monopoly was neither granted nor protected by any statute. The Court observed that the BCCI operates independently of the state with no financial support or ownership stake from the government.

The Supreme Court based on these findings held that there was no basis to examine the claim of the Petitioner of infringement of the fundamental rights by the BCCI. However, Justice S.B. Sinha dissented and opined that the BCCI represented the Government of India in the international cricketing community and should therefore be considered a ‘State’ under Article 12 (Part III of Constitution).

Thus, the Supreme Court held that due to the financial, administrative and statutory autonomy of the BCCI it cannot be considered as a ‘State’ or fall under the purview of ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

The 5-Judge Bench restated its previous landmark rulings in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975) and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (2002) and provided clarity and resolved ambiguities regarding the interpretation of ‘State’ under Article 12.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005) concluded that the BCCI despite its monopoly over cricket in India is not a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution due to its financial, administrative and statutory independence. Thus, the BCCI is not subject to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 and the claim of the petitioner regarding fundamental rights violations was dismissed