The introduction of the new economic policy of liberalization in 1991 which enabled the private sector to exercise Statutory Rights came to be a major concern. The globalization of sports had shifted the focus of legal order to certain International and National sports organization. These Global and National associations would take their own decision which have significant impact on the players and have significant economic consequences. They were considered as the self-governing associations, independentof governments.Cricket is internationally controlled by the International Cricket Council (ICC) and Board of Cricket Council in India (BCCI) manages cricket in Indian origin.Cricket is accorded a significant place in India and draws in majority of the populace in the country. The introductionand success of the Indian Premier League had shown the exemplified popularity for the game throughout the world. The success of the Indian Premier League (IPL) has moved the heft of cricket from ICC to BCCI. The Board of Cricket Council of India (BCCI) runs cricket as a private endeavour and is least responsible towards public, players, with no transparency. BCCI can eventually bring cricket to obscurity because of the prevailing irregularities and anomalies inside. This article gives the essential thought on the Legal Status of the Board of Cricket Council in India (BCCI).

Can BCCI be considered a State under Article 12 of the Constitution?

In the cases of Mohinder Amarnath and Ors. v. BCCI[i], Ajay Jadeja v. Association of India and Ors[ii]. before the Delhi High Court, the legal status of BCCI has been put to challenge. The Supreme Court had likewise manageda couple of cases: regarding the same in BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors.,[iii]and numerous different cases. The appointed authorities in all cases had maintained that the writ petition against the BCCI is viable and furthermore denied to state any viewpoint with respect to the situation of BCCI as an instrumentality of the stateon the grounds that BCCI had a monopoly in managing and controlling the game. The court had likewise referenced a couple of words that, \’other authorities\’ utilized in Article 12 may cover some other individual or body performing public obligations.

In BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors[iv]., the apex court had mentioned that, as the monopoly power status of the BCCI has an immense force they ought to practice and follow the doctrine of reasonableness and good faith in the all of its exercises. It has further held that owing respect to the fact that it needs to satisfy the expectations and goal of millions it has an obligation to act sensibly and it can\’t act arbitrarily, unusually, or impulsively. As the board stands in control of the profession of cricket their activities are to be judged by higher standards.

Significance of Public Function Test

Owing to globalization of sports, the courts had interpreted the term ‘other authorities’ in two different ways. The first way had been seen in the majority opinion in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram[v]though second way had been seen in the Justice Mathew J’s., assessment in the same case.

Mathew J.,in Sukhdev Singh\’s Case has propounded Public Function Test as the norm/criteria to discover instrumentalities of state by way of interpretating the term \’other authorities\’ under Article 12. Public Function Test sets out that, if the activities performed by the private bodies are similar to that of the state functions, such private bodies can be deemed to be state actors under article 12. Although Justice Bhagwati J., had expressed his opinion to incorporate private authorities under state he has left the matter undecided on grounds of laxity of time, However regardless of this the case remains significant as court had observed in this case that the American Doctrine of State Action may be relevant in India and accordingly every one of the elements of a body decided as a \’State\’ need not be under public capacity.

The Indian Premier League and its powers had been vested with the BCCI and have been stretched to a large extent. It is a sole body which controls TV and broadcasting rights and furthermore includes the privileges of the watchers to observe the match on TV and other media. It controls the granting, support, appropriation of prize cash, choosing of players, and their preclusion and so on The BCCI enjoys a monopoly power in this. The association isn\’t limited by any arrangement of the Law or order, or regulated by the Government.Likewise, it is not bound to act fairly and reasonably according to article 14 of the constitution as it is not a ‘state’ under Article 12. It has been a minority opinion in various judgements that performance of public functions enables a private body to fall within the purview of ‘state’ as under Article 12 and thus, will have to undergo the rigour of fundamental rights.

Suggestion 

It is reasonably said that BCCI is the self-ruling body having its own standards and guidelinesAdditionally it doesn\’t take any monetary help from the Government. It doesn\’t ridicule the significance of the public capacities and commitments performed by it.

BCCI ought to be held as an instrumentality of state under Article 12 of the Constitution. As suggested by the National Commission\’s audit on working of the Constitution amendment to Article 12 of the Constitution including private bodies under its purview would be greatly beneficial as these private bodies often involve in such functions which have great consequences on the welfare of the people.

The \’Public Policy\’ concerning BCCI ought not be restricted to BCCI Rules and Regulations rather it must be decided in the light of Constitutional Provisions.

Conclusion 

The Board of Cricket Council in India (BCCI) ought to be treated as the State under Article 12, and it will make BCCI subject to established rigour of fundamental rights. In the event that BCCI should go under the ambit of RTI;

1)         It will recuperate the ethical principles and order in the game,

2)         It likewise empowers effectiveness in the administration,

3)         It likewise ensures transparency and accountability.

4)         It likewise forestalls irreconcilable circumstance and restricts any political involvement

The classical theory of liberalism is enshrined with the notions giving grave importance to private sphere, restraining the intrusion of the state into the same. With the advent of globalization, neo-liberal policies, economic growth and open markets have become the norm. this had increased the sway of non-0stateactorsand has threatened the sovereignty of the state. Welfare of the people, their rights, liberties, freedom and autonomy came to be controlled by private bodies. In such state of affairs, the spirit of constitution can be realised only by bringing such private bodies under the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the constitution so as to subject such bodies to the rigour of fundamental rights and constitutional limits.