• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• Business Line
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

J. Venkatesan

New Delhi , Oct. 5

THE Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on the maintainability of a writ petition filed by Zee Telefilms challenging the cancellation of the contract awarded to it by the Board of Control for Cricket in India.

A five-member Constitution Bench, while reserving the verdict, declined to interfere with the BCCI's decision to award the contract to Doordarshan to telecast live the India-Australia and India-South Africa series as well as the Platinum Jubilee friendship one-day match between India and Pakistan.

The Bench, comprising Mr Justice Santosh N. Hegde, Mr Justice S.N. Variava, Mr Justice B.P. Singh, Mr Justice H.K. Sema and Mr Justice S.B. Sinha, passed this order, while deferring the hearing on an application by Zee Telefilms questioning the BCCI's decision to award the national telecast rights to Doordarshan and the overseas rights to Sony network. It said that it would first decide the maintainability of Zee's writ petition.

At the same time, the Bench directed Prasar Bharti, Set Satellite (Singapore) Pvt Ltd (Sony) and the BCCI to maintain proper accounts of the revenue received from the telecast of the matches.

On behalf of the Centre, Additional Solicitor-General, Mr Mohan Parasaran, on Tuesday produced before the court a set of letters written by the BCCI to the Government to drive home the point that the Board had been consistently following its administrative guidelines on the management of sports.

The documents included letters written by the BCCI seeking the Centre's permission for the Indian team to play matches in foreign countries and for inviting foreign teams to play matches in India.

BCCI counsel, Mr K.K. Venugopal, refuted the Centre's stand that the Board was subject to Government control and said that merely seeking permission from the Government did not change the nature of the BCCI. He said permissions were asked from the Government in a routine manner just like any other sports organisation and it does not mean that the Government was exercising any control over the Board.

Zee Telefilms' counsel, Mr Harish Salve, cited several letters by the BCCI to the Government seeking various kinds of permissions for hosting matches in India and sending the Indian team abroad. He contended that the document proved beyond doubt that the Board functioned under the Government control and it was, therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 32 of the Constitution. He said the BCCI had been applying for permission on a particular format supplied by the Sports Ministry.

The former Attorney-General, Mr Soli Sorabji, appearing for ESPN-Star, said the BCCI was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution but it should not be construed that the Board is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

The Bench, while reserving the verdict, asked the parties to file their written submissions by Monday.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Radio/TV | Sports | Corporate Disputes

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Summons issued to Lodha, others in Birla case

Copyright © 2004, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line