For, even as it ruled that BCCI could not be considered as a statutory authority or an instrumentality of the state, the 2005 verdict in the Zee Telefilms case said it performed "public functions" for which writ petitions could be filed against it under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Referring to its role in selecting an Indian team and controlling the occupation of players and others involved in the game of cricket, the majority verdict delivered by Justice Santosh Hegde said: "These activities can be said to be akin to public duties or State functions." More tellingly, the Constitution bench said, "it is clear that when a private body exercises public functions, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article 226".
This judicial ruling of BCCI's public accountability could well be used by RTI petitioner Madhu Agrawal to argue that this cricket body fulfilled the criteria prescribed for a "public authority" falling within the domain of RTI.
Agrawal filed her complaint on July 8 close on the heels of a Bill drafted by the government seeking to keep all sports federations under the RTI ambit.
The draft Bill stipulates that no sports federation can any longer have a right to represent India in international events unless it accepted the codified sports ethics and the applicability of RTI.
Apart from the issue of its public duties, BCCI would also have to address Agrawal's claim that, for all its autonomy, it had been extensively subsidized by the government.
In its notice on July 10, CIC asked BCCI and its state affiliates to provide details on the aspect of public funding, whether as huge chunks of land provided for cricket stadiums or in the form of tax breaks.
This is because one of the criteria for a body to be treated as a "public authority" answerable under RTI is that it should have been "substantially financed ... directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government".
Given the unusually large number of respondents in this case, the three-member bench of CIC headed by Satyananda Mishra is specially holding the two-day hearing in a big conference hall instead of its usual court room.
0 comments:
Post a Comment