This stand of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was advanced by senior advocate K K Venugopal before a five-judge Bench comprising Justice N Santosh Hegde, Justice S N Variava, Justice B P Singh, Justice H K Sema and Justice S B Sinha.
Venugopal's reply came as a counter to the stand taken by the Centre through Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran who said the Board was a 'State' within the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution and hence, the writ petition of Zee TV would be maintainable against BCCI.
Zee had challenged the cancellation of the tender process for the award of the telecast rights for all cricket matches to be held in India between 2004 and 2008.
Parasaran cited a host of reasons to advance his argument that BCCI carried out a function which was akin to the function of the Government and said the Centre has recognised BCCI as the apex body for administration of the game of cricket in India.
However, the Board contended that it neither received any financial grant nor recognition from the Government and that it was a private, autonomous body.
The Bench, after hearing Parasaran, said, "Most of your arguments fail when you have no proof to show that you have recognised the BCCI as the apex body in the field of cricket".