Introduction
Traditionally, the law governing sports was not designated as a separately identifiable area of law, with many envisaging it to be separately identifiable, owing to various contemporary developments that could necessitate a comprehensive discipline governing sports in the future.[1] However, “Sports Law”, as an amalgamation of various laws dealing with sports related issues, is a reality, and Sports Law has been established not only in practice, but also as a field of study.[2] However, in the Indian Context, there is no established jurisprudence with respect to Sports Law issues. Various Courts have engaged in a multi-faceted analysis & implementation of various provisions aiming to control, regulate, and govern Sports Law in India. This article shall be analyzing the 20 Major Sports Law Cases one must be aware about.
Chandresh Sankhla v. State of Rajasthan
The High Court of Rajasthan, in the case of Chandresh Sankhla v. State of Rajasthan[3] relied on the decisions of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana and High Court of Bombay & the dismissal of challenges against these decisions by the Supreme Court, to hold that the issue of the legitimacy of fantasy sports is no longer open for debate, thereby upholding the validity of fantasy sports. No appeal was filed against this decision.
Cricket Association of Bihar v. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.
Two successive writ petitions[4] were filed by the appellant Cricket Association of Bihar in public interest, for rescinding the probe panel & changing the composition of the panel formed by BCCI for inquiry into allegations of spot fixing & betting in IPL. The Apex Court reconstituted the panel responsible by formulating a three-member committee (Lodha Committee) comprising of 3 former Supreme Court Judges to investigate into the alleged violations.
Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
The court dwelled upon the classification of Horse-Racing as under a regular game vis-à-vis gambling, as the Tamil Nadu Legislature had included Horse Racing under the ambit of “gaming”. The court dwelled upon the question of whether horse-racing was a game of mere skill, and whether it was prohibited under the Police Act. The court held that since horse racing required knowledge & skill, it cannot be classified as gambling.[5]
Gurdeep Singh Sachar v. Union of India
The aforementioned case is a recent judgment[6] of the Bombay High Court that stated that Dream-11 Fantasy Sports cannot be categorized as “gambling”, as it is a game of skill. Furthermore, the activities conducted by Dream-11 do not amount to lottery, betting, or gambling. Furthermore, the Court also held that 18% GST shall be levied on the games.
ICC Development (International) Ltd. v Arvee Enterprises & Anr.
In the mentioned case[7], the ICC recorded a request against the non-supports Avnee Enterprises and the Evergreen Service Station against the showcasing of offering tickets as prizes with the slogan of ICC alongside the mascot of World Cup 2003.The Delhi High Court stated that there is a restricted law accessible for “ambush marketing” for the encroachment of brand name or copyright. The court additionally added that controlling reasonable rivalry and right to discourse will be a prerogative one and such activity should be possible on the definition of law by the Legislature.
ICC Development (International) Ltd. v Ever Green Service Station & Anr.
The plaintiff ICC Development (International) Ltd. filed a suit of injunction against Ever Green Service Station and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter, “HPCL”) .The plaintiff has created a distinct phrase “ICC World Cup South Africa 2003” logo and a mascot-“Dazzler”, further undertaking not to authorize any third party to use the same. The High Court of Delhi held that non-living entities are not entitled to publicity rights and hence any attempts to misappropriate the publishing rights of the organizer shall violate the organizers’ fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.[8]
Indian Poker Association v. State of Karnataka
In one of the landmark judgments pertaining to the legality of poker, the Karnataka High Court in the backdrop of numerous arrests & raids in clubs for playing poker, ruled that poker being a game of skill, can be played freely and does not require any licensing for the same. Furthermore, it was held that playing poker in clubs, recreational centers, etc. is permitted freely.[9]
Kizhakke Naduvath Suresh v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court used the ‘predominance of skill’ test to state that the game of Poker is a skill-based game, and thus laid down that no governmental authorities can interfere in poker games conducted by the aggrieved party.[10]
K. Murugan Etc. v Fencing Assn. of India
This is one of the landmark cases[11] concerning the Indian Olympic Association. Due to a dispute on the term & composition of executive council, the court adjudicated on various aspects pertaining to the functioning of Indian Olympic Association, stating that fresh elections must be conducted for the governing body, & a fresh executive council must be formulated.
Manoranjithan Manamyil Mandram v. State of Tamil Nadu
The case involved an appeal for issue of mandamus to restrain the members of a society at Trichy from playing the games of Rummy, Table Tennis, Chess, etc.
It was stated that the court that games, whether played in a public place, or in a club can be arbitrarily interfered under Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930. Furthermore, the court also stated that the determination of fantasy sports as a game of sport or skill depends upon the modalities from game to game.[12]
Prasar Bharati & Ors v. Citizens, Consumer & Civic Action Group
In the present case, bidders were invited for the telecasting rights of India-Pakistan Series (2004) Tournament. Ten Sports, a private broadcasting network was granted the telecasting rights. Tens Sports claimed its rights over exclusive broadcasting of the event. The Madras High Court ordered Ten Sports to share its broadcasting rights with Prasar Bharati & Doordarshan, subject to certain reimbursements to Ten Sports.[13]
New Delhi Television Ltd. v. ICC Development (International) Ltd. & Anr.
The respondents established a suit looking for a directive to limit NDTV News Channel from encroaching their copyright in the transmission of the cricket matches coordinated by ICC as likewise the propagation rights for the same, as NDTV displayed important footage of the same. The Court stated that the said display by NDTV does not fall under the “fair dealing” exception, as it was in the nature of news analysis.[14]
Percept D’ Mark (India) v. Private Limited v. Zaheer Khan & Anr.
The issue in front of the court was that whether the right of ‘First Refusal’ entered under the permission agreement, entered between the appellant Percept D’ Mark (Sports Management Company) & respondent Zaheer Khan (Cricketer) is in restraint of trade. The agreement contained the arrangement that before the fulfillment of the primary exchange time frame the offended party would have the “right of first refusal” concerning the proposals of media commitment received by the plaintiff. The Apex Court propounded the Balance of Convenience with respect to interpreting right to first refusal.[15]
Surinder Singh Barmi v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India
In the present case, the Competition Commission of India dragged Board of Control for Cricket in India to Court for its anti-competitive practices, and for abusing its dominant position in the market of private cricket leagues in India, based on BCCI’s contract with Indian Premier League (IPL) that restricted organizing or recognizing any other professional in competition. The conduct of BCCI was found to be in contravention of S4(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, and it was held that BCCI shall not place any restriction on conducting events by other parties.[16]
Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr.
In the present case, Cricket Association of Bengal, in celebrating its diamond jubilee, invited bidders for the telecasting rights of an ODI Cricket Tournament. Trans World International, the highest bidder was granted the telecasting rights over a national company, Doordarshan that made the lowest bid. The question before the court was that which stakeholder has rights over telecasting such events. It was held that Cricket Association of Bengal has the right under the law to broadcast its matches by an agency of its own choice, subject to public interest. The court stated that the modalities regarding parallel broadcasts by International Companies can be considered.[17]
STAR India Private Limited. v. Akuate Internet Services & Ors.
In the present case, STAR India Pvt. Ltd. reached the court seeking a right to restrict mobile broadcasting rights of cricket matches, as against Cricbuzz, Onmobile, & Idea Cellular. While the Delhi HC granted interim injunction to STAR India Ltd., the Apex Court held that parties such as Cricbuzz, Onmobile, & Idea Cellular can continue to broadcast to their customers, with the stipulation that a payment of determined amount has to be made to STAR India.[18]
The State of Bombay v. R.M.D Chamarbaugwala
This was a landmark case that dealt with several pertinent aspects related to lottery & gambling including the scope, nature, and definition of acts that could be considered as gambling, validity, constitutionality & nexus with respect to objective sought to be achieved by the same. Mainly, the Bombay Lotteries & Prize Competition Control & Tax Act (1948) was challenged, and the court upheld the validity of the act while dwelling on the various other aspects.[19]
State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana & Ors.
The police charged 7 persons who were found at the premises of a club playing “Rummy”, under the Hyderabad Gambling Act. The court dwelled upon the classification of “Rummy” as under a regular game vis-à-vis gambling. The court differentiated rummy from other gambling games, stating that it warrants for certain amount of skills, including memorization. Furthermore, the club in question was deemed to be an open space rather than a gambling house.[20]
Varun Gumber v. Union Territory of Chandigarh
The question before the court was whether the categorization of Dream-11 fantasy sports as a can be classified as game of skill, rather than chance. The petitioner approached the court after depositing a sum of Rs.50000/- on the Dream-11 website, and losing almost the entire sum within a span of 2 days, hence contenting that the activities/games on the website are not based on any skill, and are hence prohibited under the Public Gambling Act, 1867. The court stated that fantasy sports involve considerable skill.[21]
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
After Board of Control for Cricket in India terminated its broadcasting contract with Zee Telefilms Ltd., Zee Telefilms Ltd. approached the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. A preliminary issue challenging the maintainability of the petition was raised stating that BCCI does not fall under ‘state’ as under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The Question of Law involvedwas whether BCCI can be considered an instrument of the State under the definition of Article 12. While the Writ Petition was admitted under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, themajority of the bench opined that BCCI does not fall under the ambit of state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.[22]
[1] Timothy Davis, What Is Sports Law?, 11 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 211 (2001).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Chandresh Sankhla v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 264.
[4] Cricket Association of Bihar v. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 251.
[5] Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 1996 2 SCC 226
[6] Gurdeep Singh Sachar v. Union of India, (2019) SCC OnLine Bom 13059
[7] ICC Development (International) Ltd. v Arvee Enterprises & Anr., 2003 SCC OnLine Del 2
[8] ICC Development (International) Ltd. v Ever Green Service Station & Anr., 2003 SCC OnLine Del 1
[9] Indian Poker Association v. State of Karnataka, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 8536
[10] Kizhakke Naduvath Suresh v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 13728 (W) of 2015.
[11] K. Murugan Etc. v Fencing Assn. of India, (1991) 2 SCC 412
[12] Manoranjithan Manamyil Mandram v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 Mad 261
[13] Prasar Bharati & Ors v. Citizens, Consumer & Civic Action Group, 2004 SCC OnLine TDSAT 6
[14] ICC Development (International) Limited. & Anr. v. New Delhi Television Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4919
[15] Percept D’ Mark (India) v. Private Limited v. Zaheer Khan & Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 227
[16] Re: Surinder Singh Barmi v. Board for Control of Cricket in India, 2013 SCC OnLine CCI 9
[17] Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161
[18] STAR India Private Limited. v. Akuate Internet Services & Ors., Case Nos. FAO(OS) 153/2013
[19] The State of Bombay v. R.M.D Chamarbaugwala, AIR 1957 SC 699
[20] State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana & Ors., 1968 AIR 825
[21] Varun Gumber v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2017 Cri LJ 3827
[22] Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., WP. (Civil) 541 of 2004
YLCC would like to thank Tamanna Gupta for her valuable inputs in this article.
