Bridge Federation Of India (BFI) Discharges 'Public Duty', Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has recently ruled that the Bridge Federation of India, by virtue of its complete control over Bridge Tournaments is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and is bound by a "public duty" in the exercise of its duty or obligation to the public by being the sole repository of rights in connection with the selection of players including...
The Calcutta High Court has recently ruled that the Bridge Federation of India, by virtue of its complete control over Bridge Tournaments is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and is bound by a "public duty" in the exercise of its duty or obligation to the public by being the sole repository of rights in connection with the selection of players including for grant of permission to play in national and international Bridge Tournaments.
The instant proceedings arose out of a writ petition challenging notices issued by BFI whereby the petitioner was suspended from participating in all Bridge Tournaments pending inquiry and was further debarred from participating in any tournament conducted by the BFI as well as international events of the World Bridge Federation for a period of 18 months effective from July 2022.
Counsels for respondent BFI raised objection on the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that BFI was not an entity under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya rejected such objection on the ground that the BFI discharged such duties and functions which tantamount to having complete control over Bridge Tournaments in India and abroad and exercises sole authority in such respect which may irrevocably impact the career of Bridge players.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar reported in (2015) 3 SCC 251, the Court reasoned:
"It is undisputed that BFI is the sole custodian of the right to select players for national and international Bridge Tournaments and approves their participation in such events. BFI hence is the only decision-making body in matters of permitting selected players for participating in national and international Bridge Tournaments. The Supreme Court dealt with a similar question on whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was amenable to judicial review: Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar; (2015) 3 SCC 251. The Supreme Court held that BCCI falls within Article 226 of the Constitution even though it is not a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The rationale of the Supreme Court was based on the nature of the duties and function performed by BCCI; one of the grounds being that BCCI has complete control over the game of cricket in this country to the exclusion of all others.
Paragraph 33 of the Report applies with full vigour to the facts and logic in the present case. Like the BCCI, the respondent no. 3/Bridge Federation of India, formulates the regulations, norms and standards covering all aspects of Bridge Tournaments played in the country as well as outside India. The power of choosing the members of the national team and of disqualifying players is also a common function shared by both BFI and BCCI. This would be borne out from the impugned decisions of suspension and debarment made against the petitioner in the present case as well as the Rules and Regulations forming part of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of BFI. The Rules and Regulations indicate that BFI has complete sway over the game of Bridge in the country and exercises sole authority which may irrevocably impact the sporting career of a Bridge player. The facts concerning the merits of the case in the following paragraphs would substantiate this point."
Counsels for BFI further sought to assail the maintainability of the instant writ petition, arguing that the said petition was filed in the nature of a service dispute which ought to be rejected, however, this contention was rejected by the Court on its merit-based finding that the relevant provisions of the Rules and Regulations of BFI stipulated that only a sports association registered under the relevant statute in the State/UT having registered players to conduct bridge events in the said State/UT, were eligible to be members of BFI. Hence, as the instant petitioner was not a member of BFI, the service dispute argument was deemed unsustainable.
Finding that the nature of duties and functions discharged by BFI gave it the character of being the sole repository of rights in connection with the selection of players including for grant of permission to play in national and international Bridge Tournaments, the Court ruled that such a nature grant its functions the nature of a "public duty".
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1091, the Court observed thus:
" … In St. Mary's Education Society vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1091, the Supreme Court explained the meaning of the expression "public duty" as a duty or obligation to the public involving a public law element. The Supreme Court proceeded to hold that the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. In the present case, BFI being the sole repository of rights in connection with selection of players including for grant of permission to play in national and international Bridge Tournaments, has debarred the petitioner from both national and international events of BFI. Hence there is an indisputable nexus between the act complained of and the discharge of public duty in the present case."
Accordingly, the Court deemed the instant writ petition as maintainable.
The secondary limb of the judgment pertained to whether BFI, now amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226, acted in violation of principles of non-arbitrariness, fairness, natural justice and the Rules and Regulations of BFI while issuing the impugned debarment notices.
On merits, the Court found that the impugned notices were issued without complying with the step-wise procedure envisaged under the relevant rules of BFI and that there was no material on record to indicate that the petitioner was given an opportunity of further hearing before the Disciplinary Committee of BFI prior to the debarment.
The Court further observed that the de-barring penalty of 18 months was arbitrary and unreasonable for failing to specify reasons as to the length of the period of such debarment.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the said impugned debarment notices with a further direction upon BFI injuncting the said respondent from acting in terms of the said impugned notices in the matter of suspension or debarring the petitioner from national and international Bridge Tournaments conducted or approved by the BFI.
Case Title: Swarnendu Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors., WPA 19750 of 2022
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 362