Writ can hold only against BCCI’s public duties, says Delhi High Court

The court had admitted a PIL filed by two advocates, Rahul Mehra and Shantanu Sharma, against BCCI and DDCA in 2000, alleging that BCCI was like a private empire of some businessmen and traders, who had come to control the Board and abuse it for their own interests and profits.

The PIL had sought an independent probe into BCCI’s functioning and its accounts involving huge public money. The Board, in its reply, contended that government did not exercise any control over it and as a non-statutory body, no public duty was imposed upon it by statute. It was but a ‘‘private club’’ and issuance of writ against it would be completely beyond the scope of Article 226. The court allayed fears that making BCCI amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will undermine its independence and it will fall prey to governmental intervention and spell its doom.

“In discharge of public duties and public functions (as distinct from private duties and functions) it would be open to judicial review under Article 226,” the court said. Court, however, clarified that BCCI’s internal affairs would remain private. The PIL is posted for hearing on November 23.