When A Private Entity Is Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction, Judicial Review Restricted To Public Functions: J&K&L High Court
Live LawThe Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that in cases where a private body is amenable to writ jurisdiction, the powers of judicial review are confined to actions which have an element of public duty involved. Adjudicating upon the matter the bench took support from the Supreme Court judgement in BCCI vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and others, and found merit in the argument of the petitioner that the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not a state in terms of Article 12 but is amenable to writ jurisdiction Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly observed that JKCA being a constituent of BCCI also becomes amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court because of wide scope of Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench took recourse to Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust vs. V. R. Rudani, wherein SC maintained that if the nature of duty imposed on a body is public in nature, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 but if the rights sought to be enforced are purely of a private character, mandamus cannot be issued against such a body. Applying the law in vogue to the matter at hand the bench observed that while a private body like respondent BCCI, would be amenable to writ jurisdiction but the judicial review of its actions by the High Court would be confined to only those actions which have the element of public duty and its actions which have the character of private law rights are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Dealing with another argument of the petitioner that once it is shown that the action of a private body is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, a writ petition would certainly lie even to enforce contractual obligations, the bench underscored that since the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is available only against a State, the same cannot be claimed against a private body like respondent.