NEITHER STATE NOR PRIVATE: THE UNIQUE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF INDIAN CRICKET

A controversial Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to restrain the use of the name “Team India” for the national cricket team was summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court of India today. While the plea was termed “frivolous” by the judiciary, a complex legal landscape regarding the identity of Indian cricket has been illuminated by this litigation.

THE TRIGGER: A “FRIVOLOUS” CHALLENGE:-

A petition was filed arguing that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a private society rather than a government body. Consequently, it was contended that the cricket team selected by the BCCI should not be permitted to be referred to as “Team India” or the “Indian National Cricket Team.”

It was asserted by the petitioner that the use of national symbols—such as the Indian tricolor—by a private entity amounts to misrepresentation, by which the public is allegedly misled into believing the team is state-sponsored. However, these arguments were firmly rejected by the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.

Significantly, the petition was described by the Court as an abuse of the judicial process. The petitioner was reprimanded with the remark: “Don’t burden the Court.” Furthermore, the order passed by the Delhi High Court, by which the plea had initially been junked, was upheld, and the universal recognition of the team as the national representative was reaffirmed.

THE LEGAL PARADOX: PRIVATE BODY, PUBLIC FUNCTION:-

To understand the dismissal, the unique legal status of the BCCI—often described as a “grey zone”—must be examined. The primary precedent was established in the landmark 2005 Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India judgment.

In this case, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the BCCI is not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. The following justifications were provided:

• No Government Funding: It was noted that no financial grants are received from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.
• Private Registration: The Board is registered merely as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
• Lack of Ownership: No shares are held by the Government of India.

Nevertheless, a crucial distinction was made by the Judiciary. It was acknowledged that a “Public Function” is performed by the BCCI. Therefore, while it is legally private, it is amenable to Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226. Moreover, the use of the flag and the name “India” is permitted because “implied consent” has been granted by the Government, by whom the team is afforded diplomatic and logistical support.

THE ERA OF ACCOUNTABILITY: THE LODHA REFORMS:-

While the “Private” status shielded the BCCI from the name-change petition, it did not protect the Board from judicial overhaul regarding its governance. Following the 2013 IPL betting scandal, the Lodha Committee was appointed by the Supreme Court to sanitize cricket administration.

Subsequently, radical structural changes were proposed and partially implemented:

• “One State, One Vote”: It was recommended that the voting monopoly of states with multiple associations (such as Maharashtra and Gujarat) be dismantled to ensure democratic representation for all regions.
• The CAG Nominee: To ensure financial transparency, the inclusion of a nominee from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in the BCCI Apex Council was mandated.
• Cooling-Off Periods: Mandatory breaks were introduced for administrators after consecutive terms to prevent the monopolization of power by specific families or individuals.

THE “CONFLICT OF INTEREST” DILEMMA:-

The most contentious legacy of the reforms is Rule 38 of the BCCI Constitution, known as the “One Person, One Post” mandate. This rule was designed to prevent corruption by ensuring that no individual could hold multiple positions of influence simultaneously.

However, unintended consequences have been created by this strict regulation. It is stipulated that an individual cannot be a selector, commentator, or IPL mentor while holding a position in the BCCI. As a result, many cricketing legends were forced to choose between serving the national board and their private professional engagements.

For instance, Rahul Dravid was required to take a leave of absence from his corporate employment to head the National Cricket Academy. Similarly, the strict application of this rule was criticized by former captain Sourav Ganguly, by whom it was famously tweeted: “God help Indian cricket.” Ultimately, while the rule has reduced administrative conflicts, a “talent drain” has arguably been created, as top experts often decline honorary board positions to protect their livelihoods.

CONCLUSION:-

In conclusion, the summary dismissal of the petition by the Supreme Court serves as a definitive validation of the existing legal framework. The BCCI is maintained as a unique constitutional anomaly—an entity that is structurally private, yet is recognized as performing a vital public function. While it is not classified as “State” under Article 12, its operations are nevertheless subjected to judicial oversight due to the national significance of the sport. Ultimately, the legal distinction between a “private society” and a “national representative” has been rendered secondary to the accepted reality: that the “Team India” brand is authorized by implied government consent and anchored by public sentiment, by which its legacy on the global stage is secured.

SOURCE LINKS:-

1. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) – Supreme Court of India

2. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) – Lodha Committee case

3. Justice R.M. Lodha Committee Report on BCCI Reforms

4. Article 12 & Article 226 – Constitution of India

5. Supreme Court observations on PIL abuse

 Adv. Mamta Singh Shukla
Supreme Court of India | Certified PoSH Trainer

Finally, the article was originally published by Vijay Foundation. For more legal and public-interest articles, readers may visit vijayfoundations.com.