# MIS. ZEE TELE FILMS LTD. AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - **Citation:** [2005] 1 S.C.R. 913 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2005-02-02 - **Bench:** N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P. Sinc. H, rl..K. SEMA, B S.B. Sinha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mis-zee-tele-films-ltd-and-anr-v-union-of-india-and-ors-20475 - **Pages:** 106 ## Headnote Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 32, 136, 141 226 and 298; Entry Nos. 45 and 97 of Union list, 33 of State list and 25 of C Concurrent List: Grant of right to telecast cricket matches for certain period inf avour of appellant by Board of Cricket Control in /ndia-Cancellation---Challenge to-- Held by the Court: Board is not an authority/other authority-Hence, writ against it not maintainable. Held, per majority : An authority must be created by statute having powers to make laws/rules/regulations could only be called as other authority in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution-However, Supreme Court could assign the term 'authority' a wider meaning by judicial interpretation to prevent D the Government from by-passing its constitutional obligations-Merely because E a non-governmental body performing some public duty that by itself would not suffice to make such a body other authority-Board is not financially! administratively/functionally under the effective control of the Government - Since Board has not been performing its functions as an authorized representative of the State, it cannot be called as an instrumentality of the State-Moreover, Central Government's control over certain activities of the F Board is regulatory in nature and, thus, cannot be termed as pervasive contra/- Hence, the Board is not an authority. Held, per minority : Constitution is an ongoing document and thus should be interpreted G liberally-Article 12 of the Constitution must receive a purposive interpretation-Board has been allowed by the Government of India to exercise enormous powers to control the game of cricket and even to trespass across the jimdamental rights of citizens-Any activity having direct influence on the 913 II 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R. A citi=ens could be idenlifled as an aclivity of Stale, and thus p11h/icfi111clionsPresence!ahsence of a pariicular eleme1111101 determi11a1ive ofcharacreristics of an aulhority, if on overall consideration it salisfies ingredients of Article 12 of the Co11stitulio11-Si11ce Board regulates and exercise comrol over the competitive crickel/members and represent a sovereign counllJ'. India, while participating in national/internaliona/ events, it is an aulhority/state-Since B the Board is performing regulatory fimctions, it could be compelled by the Court of Law to abide by rule of law-Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court! High Court could be invoked against it. Article 141-Law laid down by the Supreme Court-Applicability of C Stalutory Authority vis-a-vis public authority-Distinction between. Functioning of a body-Judicial Review-Scope of-Discussed The question which arose for consideration was as to whether the Board of Cricket Control in India falls within the definition of 'the State' D as contemplated by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was contended for the petitioners that the Board enjoys extensive powers in terms of the Memorandum and Articles of the Association, in selecting players for the Indian National Team, representing India in E cricket matches domestically and internationally; that the Board enjoys disciplinary power over the players/umpires and other officials involved in the game; that the Board exercises Governmental functions in the game of Cricket; that since playing cricket is a profession, the Board controls the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution; and that since Union of India has pervasive control over the' F activities of the Board, it could appropriately be termed as "other authority" in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution. It was contended by Respondent No.2 - Board that a petition under Article 12 of the Constitution is not maintainable against it since it is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India; tha1t G it is not created by any statute but registered under the Societies Registration Act; that it is an autonomous body, administration of which i ## Text _Characters 0–39,993 of 254,976. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39993 for what follows._ MIS. ZEE TELE FILMS LTD. AND ANR. A V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 2, 2005 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.N. VARIAVA, B.P. SINC. H, rl..K. SEMA AND B S.B. SINHA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 32, 136, 141 226 and 298; Entry Nos. 45 and 97 of Union list, 33 of State list and 25 of C Concurrent List: Grant of right to telecast cricket matches for certain period inf avour of appellant by Board of Cricket Control in /ndia-Cancellation---Challenge to-- Held by the Court: Board is not an authority/other authority-Hence, writ against it not maintainable. Held, per majority : An authority must be created by statute having powers to make laws/rules/regulations could only be called as other authority in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution-However, Supreme Court could assign the term 'authority' a wider meaning by judicial interpretation to prevent D the Government from by-passing its constitutional obligations-Merely because E a non-governmental body performing some public duty that by itself would not suffice to make such a body other authority-Board is not financially! administratively/functionally under the effective control of the Government - Since Board has not been performing its functions as an authorized representative of the State, it cannot be called as an instrumentality of the State-Moreover, Central Government's control over certain activities of the F Board is regulatory in nature and, thus, cannot be termed as pervasive contra/- Hence, the Board is not an authority. Held, per minority : Constitution is an ongoing document and thus should be interpreted G liberally-Article 12 of the Constitution must receive a purposive interpretation-Board has been allowed by the Government of India to exercise enormous powers to control the game of cricket and even to trespass across the jimdamental rights of citizens-Any activity having direct influence on the 913 II 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R. A citi=ens could be idenlifled as an aclivity of Stale, and thus p11h/icfi111clionsPresence!ahsence of a pariicular eleme1111101 determi11a1ive ofcharacreristics of an aulhority, if on overall consideration it salisfies ingredients of Article 12 of the Co11stitulio11-Si11ce Board regulates and exercise comrol over the competitive crickel/members and represent a sovereign counllJ'. India, while participating in national/internaliona/ events, it is an aulhority/state-Since B the Board is performing regulatory fimctions, it could be compelled by the Court of Law to abide by rule of law-Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court! High Court could be invoked against it. Article 141-Law laid down by the Supreme Court-Applicability of C Stalutory Authority vis-a-vis public authority-Distinction between. Functioning of a body-Judicial Review-Scope of-Discussed The question which arose for consideration was as to whether the Board of Cricket Control in India falls within the definition of 'the State' D as contemplated by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was contended for the petitioners that the Board enjoys extensive powers in terms of the Memorandum and Articles of the Association, in selecting players for the Indian National Team, representing India in E cricket matches domestically and internationally; that the Board enjoys disciplinary power over the players/umpires and other officials involved in the game; that the Board exercises Governmental functions in the game of Cricket; that since playing cricket is a profession, the Board controls the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution; and that since Union of India has pervasive control over the' F activities of the Board, it could appropriately be termed as "other authority" in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution. It was contended by Respondent No.2 - Board that a petition under Article 12 of the Constitution is not maintainable against it since it is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India; tha1t G it is not created by any statute but registered under the Societies Registration Act; that it is an autonomous body, administration of which is not controlled by any other authority including Union of India; that it does not take any financial assistance from the Government nor is it subjected to any financial control by the Government nor its accounts are H subject to the scrutiny of the Government; that it is not conferred with + .. .../ ,, t }. ZEE TELE flLMS LTD. v. U.0.1. 915 monopoly status in the game of cricket by any statute or by any order of A the Government; that there is no law which prohibits th:; coming into existence of any other parallel organization; that as per the parameters laid down by the Seven Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Fradeep Kumar &nms v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. the Board cannot be construed as State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court HELD: Per Majority (N. Santosh Hegde, J. for himself, B.P. Singh and H.K. Sema, JJ.) : B c I. I. The intention of the Constitution framers in incorporating Article 12 was to treat such authority which has been created by law and which has got certain powers to make laws, to make rules and regulations to be included in the term "other authorities" as found presently in Article 12 of the Constitution. Because of the change in the socio-economic policies of the Government this Court considered it necessary by judicial D interpretation to give a wider meaning to the term "other authorities .. in Article 12 so as to include such bodies which were created by Act of Legislature. This judicial expansion of the term "other authorities" came about primarily with a view to prevent the Government from by-passing its constitutional obligations by creating companies, corporations etc. to E perform its duties. (935-D; 937-A-B( The University of Madras v. Shantha Bai and Anr., AIR (1954) Madras, 67 and B. W. Devadas v. The Selection Commitlee for Admission of Students to the Karnalak Engineering College and Ors .. AIR (1964) Mysore 6, referred to. F 1.2. Applying the principles laid down by seven Judge Bench in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be clear that the facts established do not cumulatively show that the Board is financially, functionally or administratively dominated by or is under the control of the Government. The little control which the G Government may be said to have on the Board is also not pervasive in nature. Besides, such limited control is purely regulatory control and nothing more. Though some of the functions being performed by the Board do partake the nature of public duties or State actions but they being in a very limited area of the activities of the Board. Even otherwise assuming H 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2005] 1 S.C.R. A that there is some clement of public duty involved in the discharge of the Board's functions even then that by itself would not suffice for bringing the Board within the net of "other authorities" for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. (942-B-C-DI Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors., B 120021ssec111, followed. 2.1. There is no doubt that Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens the fundamental right to practise any profession or to carry on any trade, occupation or business and that such a right can only be regulated by the State by virtue of Article 19(6). Hence, it C follows as a logical corollary that any violation of this right will have to be claimed only against the State and unlike the rights under Articles 17 or 21 which can be claimed against non state actors including individuals, the right under Article 19(l)(g) cannot be claimed against an individual or a non State entity. Thus, to argue that every entity, which validly or D invalidly arrogates to itself the right to regulate or for that matter even starts regulating the fundamental right of the citizen under Article 19(1)(g), is a State within the meaning of Article 12 is to put the cart before the horse. If such logic were to be applied every employer who regulates the manner in which his employee works would also have to be treated as State. 1943-A-B-CJ E 2.2. The pre-requisite for invoking the enforcement of a fundamental right under Article 32 is that the violator of that right should be a State first. The petitioner has failed to establish that the Board is State within the meaning of Article 12. Assuming there is violation of any fundamental right by the Board that will not make the Board a "State" for the purpose F of Article 12. (943-D-EI 3.1. It should be borne in mind that the State/Union has not chosen the Board to perform the duties being performed by it nor has it legally authorized the Board to carry out these functions under any law or G agreement. It has chosen to leave the activities of cricket to be controlled by private bodies out of such bodies' own volition. In such circumstances when the actions of the Board are not actions as an authorized representative of the State, it can not be said that the Board is discharging State functions. 1943-H; 944-AI H 3.2. It is true that the Union of India has been exercising certain + ZEE TELE FILMS LTD. v. U.0.1. 917 control over the activities of the Board in regard to organizing cricket A matches and travel of the Indian team abroad as also granting of permission to allow foreign teams to come to India. But this control over the activities of the Board cannot be construed as an administrative control. At best it could be termed as purely regulatory control and the same is not a factor indicating a pervasive State control of the Board. B 1944-D-E) 4.1. If the Board which controls the game of Cricket is to be held to be a State for the purpose of Article 12, there is absolutely no reason why other similarly placed bodies should not be treated as State. The fact that the game of Cricket is very popular in India also cannot be a ground to C differentiate these bodies from the Board. Any such differentiation dependent upon popularity, finances and public opinion of the body concerned would definitely violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as any discrimination to be valid must be based on hard facts and not mere surmises. Therefore neither the Board could be singly identified as "other authority" nor the State/other federations/bodies could be considered as a D A-- "State" for the purpose of Article 12. Thus, none of the other federations or bodies including the Board can be considered as a "State" for the ._. purpose of Article 12. (946-A-B-C) State of Kera/av. T.P. Roshana, [197911 SCC 572, relied on. 4.2. The term "other authorities" in Article 12 of the Constitution was introduced at the time of framing of the Constitution with a limited objective of granting judicial review of actions of such authorities which E are created under the Statute and which discharge State functions. However, because of the need of the day and keeping in view the socio- F economic policy of the country, this Court in the cases of Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Sukhdev Singh thought it fit to expand the definition of the term "other authorities" to include bodies other than statutory bodies. This development of law by judicial interpretation culminated in the judgment of the 7-Judge Bench in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas. In the meantime the socio-economic policy of the Government of India G has changed and the State is today distancing itself from commercial activities and concentrating on governance rather than on business. Therefore, the situation prevailing earlier is not in existence at least for the time being, hence, there seems to be no need to further expand the scope of "other authorities" in Article 12 by judicial interpretation at least H 918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20051 I S.C.R. A for the time being. It should also be borne in mind that in a democracy there is a dividing line between a State enterprise and a non-State enterprise, which is distinct and the judiciary should not be an instrument to erase the dividing line unless, of course, the circumstances of the day require it to do so. (946-E-F-G-H( B Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal and Ors., AIR. (1967) SC 185; Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr., ( 1975( 3 SCR 619 and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian institute of Chemical Biology and Ors., (2002] 5 SCC 111, followed. Ba/co Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors., (20021 2 c sec 333, relied on. 4.3. When a private body exercises its public functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the m:dinary law but also under the Constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article 226. Therefore, merely because a non-governmental body exercises some D public duty that by itself would not suffice to make such body a State for the purpose of Article 12. In the instant case the activities of the Board + do not come under the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas, hence this petition under Article 32 of the ., Constitution is not maintainable. (945-E-F( E Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors., 120021 5 sec 111, followed. Per Minority (Sinha, J. for himself and S.N. Variava, J.) : I.I. Constitution of India is an ongoing document and, thus, should F be interpreted liberally. Interpretation of Article 12, having regard to the exclusive control and management of sport of cricket by the Board and enormous power exercised by it calls for a new approach. The Constitution, it is trite, should be interpreted in the light of whole experience after its commencement and not merely in that of what was the state of law at the commencement of the Constitution. 1955-G I G Missouri v. Holland, (252 US 416 (433) and Kapila Hingorani •1. State of Bihar, j200316 SCC I and John Vallamattom and Anr. v. Union of India, JT (2003) 6 SC 37, relied on. Liverpool & London S. P. & I Association ltd v. M.V. Sea Success I H and Anr., 120041 9 sec 512, referred to. ZEE TELE FILMS LTD. v. U.0.1. 919 Human Rights and Article 18 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil A and Political Rig/us. (/ 966) and 'Statu101y Interpretation', Fourth Edition by Francis Bennion, referred to. 1.2. Flexibility is the hallmark of our Constitution. The growth of the Constitution shall be organic, the rate of change glacial. 1966-GI TM.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 120021 8 SCC 481; Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1200316 SCC 697 and Jiby P. Chacko v. Mediciti School of Nursing, Ghanpur, Ranga Reddy District and Anr., (2002) 2 ALO 827, referred to. B Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd. v. C Donoghue, (2002) Q.B. 48 and R (on the application of Heather and Ors.) v. Leonard Cheshire Foundation and Anr., (2002) 2 All ER 936, referred to. R. Stevens: The English Judges: Their Role in the Changing Constitution (Oxford 2002), p. (xiii) Q11oted by Lord Woe// in 'The Rule of Law and a Change in the Constitution, 2004 Cambridge Law Journal 317, referred to. D 1.3. The State by reason of a legislative action cannot confer on it extra territorial jurisdiction in relation to sports, entertainment etc. Education, however, is in Concurrent List being Item No.25 of List III. Sport is considered to be a part of Education (within its expanded E meaning). Sports has been included in the Human Resource Development as a larger part of education. 1958-EI Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India and Ors. etc. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors. etc., 11995) 2 SCC 161, referred to. F 2.1. The expression "A11thority" has a definite connotation. It has different dimensions and, thus, must receive a liberal interpretation. To arrive at a conclusion, as to which "other authorities" could come within the purview of Article 12, one may notice the meaning of the word "authority". The word "Other Authorities" contained in Article 12 is not G to be treated as ejusdam generis. Broadly, there are three different concepts which exist for determining the question which fall within the expression "other authorities". There cannot be same standard or yardstick for judging different bodies for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether it fulfils the requirements of law therefor or not. 1960-B-G; E, HI H 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] l S.C.R. · A Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors., 120021 5 sec 111, followed. Black Diamond Beverages and Anr. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, Assessment Wing, Calcutta and Ors., 11998) l SCC 458, relied on. 2.2. A 'State' has different meanings in different contexts. In a B traditional sense, it can be a body politic but in modern international practice, a State is an organization which receives the general recognition accorded to it by the existing group of other States. Union of India recognizes the Board as its representative. The expression "other authorities" in Article 12 of the Constitution of India is 'State' within the C territory of India as contradistinguished from a State within the control of the Government of India. The concept of State under Article 12 of the Constitution is in relation to the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part111 of the Constitution and Directive Principles of the State Policy as contained in Part-IV thereof. The contents of these two parts manifest that Article 12 is not confined to its ordinary or constitutional sense of an D independent or sovereign meaning so as to include within its fold whatever comes within the purview thereof so as to instil the public confidence in it. (961-D-EJ 3.1. The feature that the Board has been allowed to exercise the powers enabling it to trespass across the fundamental rights of a citizen E is of great significance. In terms of the Memorandum of Association even the States are required to approach the Board for its direction. If the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh and development of law made therefrom is to be given full effect, it is net only the functions of the F Government alone which would enable a body to become a State but also when a body performs governmental functions or quasi-governmental functions as also when its business is of public importance and is fundamental for the life of the people. This Court in expanding the definition of State did not advisedly confine itself to the debates of Constitutional Assembly. It considered each case on its own merit. "Other G authorities", inter-alia, would be there which inter alia function within the territory of India and the same need not necessarily be the Government .~ ' . of India, the Parliament of India, the Government of each of the States tor the legislation of the States. 1961-f'-G-H; 962-A-B-CI Sukhdev Singh and urs. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh, 1197511 SCC 421, H followed. _.~ ,..\o ·~ lo. ... ZEE TELE FILMS LTD. v. U.0.1. 921 3.2. The right of Indian players is comparable to their constitutional A right contained in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which would include a right to work and a right to pursue one's occupation. The Board while enjoying monopoly in cricket exercises enormous power. Its action may disable a person from pursuing his vocation and in that process subject a citizen to hostile discrimination or impose an embargo which B would make or mar a player's career. 1981-E-FI 4.1. Article 12 must receive a purposive interpretation as by reason of Part III of the Constitution a charter ofliberties against oppression and arbitrariness of all kinds of repositories of power have been conferred - the object being to limit and control power wherever it is found. A body c exercising significant functions of public importance would be an authority in respect of these functions. In those respects it would be same as is Executive Government established under the Constitution and the establishments of organizations funded or controlled by the Government. 1962-D-E-FI 4.2. It is not that every body or association which is regulated in its D private functions becomes a 'State'. What matters is the quality and character offunctions discharged by the body and the State control flowing therefrom. 1962-Fl Daniel Lee v. Vera Katz, 276 F.3d 550, referred to. E 4.3. The concept that all public sector undertakings incorporated under the Indian Companies Act or Societies Registration Act or any other Act for answering the description of State must be financed by the Central Government and be under its deep and pervasive control has undergone a sea change. The thrust now is not upon the composition of the body but F upon the duties and functions performed by it. 1963-C-DI UP Stale Cooperative land Development Bank ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors .. AIR (1999) SC 753, relied on. Federal Bank Ltd v. Sagar Thomas and Ors., 120031 to SCC 733; K.R. Anitha and Ors. v. Regional Director, ES! Corporation and Anr., 120031 10 G SCC 303 and G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute and Am'., 120031 4 SCC 225, referred to. 4.4. The expansion in the definition of State is not to be kept confined only to business activities of Union of India or other State Governments in terms of Article 298 of the Constitution of India but must also take H 922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R. A within its fold any other activity which has a direct influence on 1he citizens. 1966-EI 5. I. A body although self-regulating, if performs public duty by uay of exercise of regulatory machinery, a judicial review wauld lie agai11st it. The question has since been considered from a slightly different angle, B viz., when such action affects the human right of the person concerned holding that the same would be public function. Greig and Ors. v. Insole and Ors., (1978( 3 All ER 449; R. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin pie and Anr., 1198711 All ER 564 C and Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd. v. Donoghue, (2001 ( 4 All ER 604, referred to. 5.2. If the action of the Board impinges upon the fundamental or other constitutional rights of a citizen or if the same is ultra vires or hy reason thereof an injury or material prejudice is caused to its member ·or D a person connected with cricket, judicial review would lie. Such functio~s on the part of the Board being public function, any violation of or departure or deviation from abiding by the rules and regulation framed by it would be subject to judicial review. 1981-H; 982-AI 5.3. The concept of public law function is yet to be crystalised. E However, the power of judicial review can be exercised by this Court und·er Article 32 and by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in a case where the dispute involves a public law element as contradistinguished from a private law dispute. General view is that whenever a State or an instrumentality of a ~tate is involved, it will he regarded as an issue within the meaning of public law but where F individuals are at loggerheads, the remedy therefor has to be resorted m private law field. Situation, however, changes with the advancement of tl1e State function particularly when it enters in the fields of commerce, industry and business as a result whereof either private bodies take up public functions and duties or they are allowed to do so. The distinctiun G has narrowed down but such a distinction still exists. Thus, it may be safely inferred that when essential Governmental functions were placed or allowed to be performed by the private body, they must be held to hne undertaken public duty or public functions. 1982-D-E-F-GI Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (DJ by LRs .. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal and Or~ .. H 120031 6 sec 230, relied on. ·L ,, .... .... ZEE TELE FILMS LTD. v. U.0.1. 923 O'Reilly v. Mackman, (1982) 3 WLR 604, referred to. A .. American Constitutional law" by Laurence H. Tribe, referred to. S.4. No legislation has been made either by any State or by the Union or'lndia regulating and controlling the cricketing activities in the country. The Board authorized itself to make law regulating cricket in India :Which B it did and which it was allowed to do by the States either overtly or covertly. The States left the decision making responsibility in the hands of the Board, otherwise so-called private hands. They maintain silence despite the Board's proclamation of its authority to make law of sports for the entire country. (983-A( S.S. Performance of a public function in the context of the Constitution of India would be to allow an entity to perform the function as an, authority within the meaning of Article 12 which makes it subject to the constitutional discipline of fundamental rights. The duty to act fairly c is inherent in body which exercises such enormous power. Such a duty D can be envisioned only under Article 14 of the Constitution and not under the Administrative Law. (983-F-G( Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors., (1979] 3 SCC 489, relied on. S.6. Even when public duties are conferred by statute, powers and duties do not thereunder limit the ambit of'a statute as there are instanr.es when the conferment of powers involves the imposition of duty to exercise E it, or to perform some other incidental act, such as obedience to the principles of natural justice. Many public duties are implied by the Courts rather than commanded by the legislature; some can even be said to be F assumed voluntarily. Some statutory public duties are 'prescriptive patterns of conduct' in the sense that they are treated as duties to act reasonably so that the prescription in these cases is indeed provided by the courts, not merely recognized by them. There are, however, public duties which arise from sources other than a statute. These duties may be G more important than they are often thought to be or perceived. The functions of the Board, thus, having regard to its nature and character of functions would be public functions. (984-8-D, H; 98S-A( 'Public Duties and Public Law' by A.J. Harding, pp. 6 to 14, referred to. H 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.:~. A 6.1. The traditional tests which had impelled this Court in the case of Ajay Hasia to lay down the tests for determining the question as to whether a body comes within the purview of"Other Authorities" are not exhaustive. This case, moreover, is required to be proceed on the premise that some other tests had also been propounded if the functions of the body falls within the description of the public function, absence of State financial B aid would not influence the conclusion to the contrary. (989-A-B; 990-lli:( c Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., (1981 ( I SCC 722, relied on. Marsh v. Alabama 326 US 501, referred to. 6.2. Drawing the contrast between the governmental activities which are private and private activities which are governmental, it was noticed in the case of Sukhdev Singh that besides the so-called traditional functions, the modern State operates a multitude of public enterprises. What is, D therefore, relevant and material is the nature of the function could IJe resolved keeping in view the following : (i) When the body acts as a public authority and has a public duty to perform; E (ii) When it is bound to protect human rights. (iii) When it regulates a profession or vocation of a citizen which is otherwise a fundamental right under a statute or its own rule. (iv) When it regulates the right of a citizen contained in Artide F 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India available to the general public and viewers of the game of cricket in particular. G H (v) When it exercises a de facto or a de jure monopoly; (vi) When the State out-sources its legislative power in its favour; (vii) When it has a positive obligation of public nature. (990-B, C, D, E( Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh, ( 1975( I SCC 4:~1, relied on. .. ' ' ZEE TELE FILMS LTD. v. U.0.1. 925 6.3. The tests laid down in earlier cases may not be applicable in a A case where the body like the Board was established as a private body long time back. It was allowed by the State to represent the State or the country in international fora. It became a representative body of the international organizations as representing the country. When the nature of function of such a body becomes such that having regard to the enormity thereof B it acquires the status of monopoly for all practical purposes; regulates and control the fundamental rights of a citizen as regard their right of speech or right of occupation, becomes representative of the country either overtly or covertly and has a final say in the matter of registration of players, umpires and others connected with a very popular sport. The organizers of competitive test cricket between one association and another or C representing different States or different organizations having the status of a State are allowed to make laws on the subject which is essentially a State function in terms of Entry 33 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. In such a case, different tests have to be applied. (991-H; 992-A-B-CJ D 6.4. An entity or organization constituting a State for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution would not necessarily continue to be so for all times to come. Converse is also true. A body or an organization although created for a private purpose by reason of extension of its activities may not only start performing governmental functions but also E may become a hybrid body and continue to act both in its private capacity or public capacity. What is necessary to answer the question would be to consider the host of factors and not just a single factor. The presence or absence of a particular element would not be determinative of the issue, if on an overall consideration it becomes apparent that functionally it is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. F (992-F-GJ 6.5. It is true that regulatory measures applicable to all the persons similarly situated, in terms of the provisions of a st11tute would by itself not make an organization a State in all circumstances. Conversely, in a case of this nature non-interference in the functioning of an autonomous G body by the Government by itself may also not be a determinative factor as the Government may not consider any need therefor despite the fact that the body or organization had been discharging essentially a public function. Such non-interference would not make the public body a private body. (993-B-CI II 926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R. A 6.6. The Board for all intent and purport was a recognized body. Probably in that view of the matter, the Board did not think it necessarJ' to apply for grant of such recognition of the Union of India asking it for passing a formal order. However, the Board had all along been obtainin1: the requisite permission for sending an Indian team abroad or for inviting B a foreign team in India in the prescribed form. 11000-DI c 6. 7. The conduct of both the Board and the Union of India clearly go to show that sub silentio both the parties had been acting on the premise~ that the Board is recognized as the only recognized National Federation for the purpose of regulating the game of cricket in India. 11001-G-HI Rahul Mehra and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (Civil Writ Petition No. !680 of2000) disposed of by Supreme Court on 4th October, (2004), reliecl on. 6.8. A public authority would be an authority which not only can: D regulate and control the entire sports activities in relation to cricket but: also the decisive character it plays in formulatinl,l the game in all aspect~ Even the Federations controlled by the State and other public bodies a!: la'3o the State themselves, in view of the Board's Memorandum ol' Association and the Rules and Regulations framed by it, are under its complete control. Thus, it would be subject to a judicial review. E 11003-G, H; 1004-Al 6.9. Although, there are domestic events, indisputably only those whCI are members of the Board and/or recognized by it can take part therein and none else. This also goes to show that the Board regulates the domestk competitive cricket to the fullest measure and exercises control over it!: F members. 11006-Cf 6.10. In the constitutional scheme rule of law would, by all means., prevail over rule of cricket. A body regulating the game of cricket woul