Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Karthikeya Varma @ Kartik Varma on 31 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:81601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.1921 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2015 IN W.P(C).NO.1383 OF 2014
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
HARISH V.
S/O.V.N.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, HARITHAM,
NEELESWARAM P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN - 671 314.
BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
BY ADV.SRI.P.PRIJITH
BY ADV.SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 T.C.MATHEW
FORMER HONORARY SECRETARY, KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,
KCA COMPLEX, T.C./131, SHASTAMKOVIL ROAD, THYCAUD P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
3 THE DIRECTOR
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
BY SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (VIGILANCE)
BY SMT.S.REKHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 2 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
BY ADV.SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
BY ADV.SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
BY ADV.SRI.NISHIL.P.S.
BY ADV.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
BY ADV.SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.10.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.2277/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 3 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.2277 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2015 IN W.P(C).NO.15389 OF 2014
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
JOY KAITHARATH
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.ANTONY, GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
PROTECTION CENTRE, THRISSUR, VELLIKULANGARA PO
BY ADV.SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 JAYESH GEORGE M.
MANICKANAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.R.M.ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 18
2 THE DIRECTOR
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
ERNAKULAM UNIT, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM - 682017
BY SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (VIGILANCE)
BY SMT.S.REKHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 4 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
BY ADV.SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
BY ADV.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.10.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1921/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 5 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.2381 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2015 IN W.P(C).NO.11822 OF 2013
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
JOY KAITHARATH
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.ANTONY, GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
PROTECTION CENTRE, THRISSUR, VELLIKULANGARA P.O.
BY ADV.SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD
BY ADV.SRI.A.RENJIT
BY ADV.SRI.GOKUL R.NAIR
BY ADV.SRI.ANSALAM N.X.
BY ADV.SRI.P.SUJITH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 KARTHIKEYA VARMA @ KARTHIK VARMA
D4, KAILAS APARTMENTS, N.F.GATE, TRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM 682 017.
2 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF LAW
& JUSTICE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 011.
3 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 6 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
ERNAKULAM UNIT, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM - 682 017.
BY ADV.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
BY SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (VIGILANCE)
BY SMT.S.REKHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SMT.O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
BY SRI.C.DINESH, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
BY SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
BY ADV.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.10.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1921/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 7 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.2382 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2015 IN W.P(C).NO.20071 OF 2013
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
JOY KAITHARATH
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.ANTONY, GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
PROTECTION CENTRE, THRISSUR, VELLIKULANGARA P.O.
BY ADV.SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 T.N.ANANTHA NARAYANAN
S/O.T.V.NATARAJAN, 6/1781, H.K.DADA BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI - 682 002.
2 THE DIRECTOR
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
ERNAKULAM UNIT, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM 682 017.
BY ADV.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
BY SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (VIGILANCE)
BY SMT.S.REKHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 8 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
BY ADV.SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.10.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1921/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 9 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.351 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2015 IN W.P(C).NO.1383 OF 2014
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN W.P.(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (VIGILANCE)
BY SMT.S.REKHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
1 T.C. MATHEW
FORMER HONORARY SECRETARY, KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,
K.C.A COMPLEX, T.C./131, SASTHAMKOVIL ROAD,
THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 SRI.HARISH V
S/O.V.N. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, HARITHAM,
NEELESWARAM P.O., KASARAGOD - 671 314.
BY ADV.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
BY ADV.SRI.AHAMMAD SAHEER
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 10 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
BY ADV.SMT.K.AASHA
BY ADV.SRI.BABU THOMAS (PAZHAYATHOTTATHIL)
BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
BY ADV.SMT.N.K.SHEEBA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.10.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1921/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 11 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.382 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2015 IN W.P(C).NO.11822 OF 2013
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN W.P.(C):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
ERNAKULAM UNIT - 682 017.
BY SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (VIGILANCE)
BY SMT.S.REKHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 4 IN W.P.(C):
1 KARTHIKEYA VARMA @ KARTIK VARMA
S/O.N.U.RAMA VARMA THAMPURAN, D4, KAILAS APARTMENTS,
N.F.GATE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF
LAW & JUSTICE OF THE UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 011.
3 JOY KAITHARATH
S/O.ANTONY, GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
PROTECTION CENTRE, THRISSUR, REG.NO.389/2003,
VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR - 680 699.
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 12 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
BY ADV.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
BY ADV.SRI.T.B.HOOD
BY ADV.SMT.M.ISHA
BY SMT.O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
BY SRI.C.DINESH, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.10.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1921/2015 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 13 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.682 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2015 IN W.P(C).NO.15389 OF 2014
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN W.P.(C):
1 THE DIRECTOR
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE & ANIT CORRUPTION BUREAU,
ERNAKULAM UNIT - 682017.
BY SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (VIGILANCE)
BY SMT.S.REKHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
1 JAYESH GEORGE M.
S/O.LATE. M.V.GEORGE, MANICKANAMPARAMBIL,
SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
2 JOY KAITHARATH
S/O.ANTONY, GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
PROTECTION CENTRE, THRISSUR, REG.NO.389/2003,
VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR. 680699.
BY ADV.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 14 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
BY ADV.SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
BY ADV.SRI.NAVANEETH D.PAI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.10.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1921/2015 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 15 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.1083 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2015 IN W.P(C).NO.20071 OF 2013
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN W.P.(C)
1 THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
ERNAKULAM UNIT - 682 017
BY SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (VIGILANCE)
BY SMT.S.REKHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
1 T.N.ANANTHA NARAYANAN
S/O.T.V.NATARAJAN, 6/1781, H.K DADA BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002
2 JOY KAITHARATH
S/O.ANTONY, GENERAL SECRETARY,
STATE HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION CENTRE, THRISSUR,
REG.NO.389/2003, VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR - 680 699.
BY ADV.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 16 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
BY ADV.SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL PALAKKAT
BY ADV.SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.10.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1921/2015 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 17 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The vexed question that we are called upon to answer in these
writ appeals is, whether the office bearers of the Kerala Cricket
Association, a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary,
Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, affiliated to, and functioning
under the administrative control of, the Board for Control of Cricket in
India [BCCI], can be treated as "public servants" for the purposes of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
The Background:
2. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred
to as the "PC Act"] is a social welfare legislation that was enacted with
the aim of removing corruption from public service. At the time of its
enactment, it replaced the earlier legislative regime constituted by the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as supplemented
by the since omitted Sections 161 to 165(a) of the Indian Penal Code
[hereinafter referred to as the "IPC"], and was envisaged to be a
complete code in relation to tackling of corruption in public service.
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 18 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
3. Section 2(c) of the PC Act defines a "public servant" to mean,
inter alia, "any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is
authorised or required to perform a public duty" [Section 2(c)(viii)] as
also "any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an
educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever
manner established, receiving or having received any financial
assistance from the Central Government or any State Government, or
local or other public authority" [Section 2(c)(xii)]. Explanations 1 and 2
to Section 2(c) are also relevant and they read as under:
Explanation 1- Persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are
public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not.
Explanation 2- Wherever the words "public servant" occur, they shall be
understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a
public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that
situation.
"Public duty" is defined in Section 2(b) of the PC Act as meaning "a
duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at
large has an interest." An Explanation to the said sub-section clarifies
that the term "State" includes a corporation established by or under a
Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or
controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as
defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. It would appear that complaints were filed by certain persons
before the Courts of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge at
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 19 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
Thrissur and Kottayam alleging corruption by the office bearers of the
Kerala Cricket Association in the purchase of land in Edakochi at
Ernakulam and Manakkad Village in Thodupuzha Taluk for constructing
cricket stadiums of International Standards. When the courts
aforementioned directed a preliminary enquiry to be conducted in the
matters before them, the accused office bearers of the Kerala Cricket
Association impugned the orders of the Special Courts before this Court
through writ petitions that inter alia sought for a declaration that the
petitioners office bearers of the Kerala Cricket Association would not
come within the purview of the PC Act, 1988 and a consequent writ of
certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Special Courts.
The impugned judgment:
5. The learned Single Judge, by the judgment impugned in these
appeals, allowed the writ petitions and found that the office bearers of
the Kerala Cricket Association would not be covered by the definition of
'public servant' under the PC Act, 1988. He drew a distinction between
public and private functions, based on a Hohfeldian analysis of the
concepts of power, liability, duty and right. He reasoned that in the
discharge of both public and private functions there is an inevitable
exercise of power by one actor that corresponds to a liability borne by
the person exposed to the exercise of the power. The former holds the
power to control, reduce and expand the entitlement of the latter who
are exposed to the exercise of such power. However, a duty to exercise
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 20 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
that power (public duty) can be read into only in such situations where
a right enuring to another person under the positive laws or valid
executive directions of a State, obliges the person holding the power to
exercise it in favour of the right-holder. In other words, 'A' who holds
the power to control, reduce or expand the entitlement of 'B' can be
said to be discharging a public duty in relation to 'B' only if a right
conferred on 'B' by the positive laws or valid executive directions of the
State obliges 'A' to exercise the power held by him. The learned Judge
went on to find that 'public duty' under the PC Act, while referring to a
duty in the discharge of which the State, public or the community at
large have an interest, must nevertheless be a duty that a public
servant must be under a positive command of the law to discharge.
Axiomatically, if a body or corporation exercised a State function,
without obligation under the existing laws, it would tantamount merely
to the exercise of a State function and would not be a discharge of
public duty. The learned Judge therefore found that the Kerala Cricket
Association was not exercising a public duty within the meaning of the
term under the PC Act. The aforesaid reasoning of the learned Judge
can be found at paragraphs 42 to 46 of the impugned judgment and
read as follows:
"42. Law making is a sovereign power and a State function. It
denotes "power" vested with the State to regulate men under juridical
laws. Wesley N. Hohfeld a renowned author of "Fundamental Legal
Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning" classifies that jural
correlative of 'power' is 'liability'. Thus, someone who holds the power
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 21 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
can control, reduce and expand the entitlement of the men upon whom
the power is imposed. The men bears 'liability' and exposed to exercise
of such power. In a Constitutionally governed State, ordinarily, this
power to make law, derives from the Constitution. However, due to
expansion of State activities, as seen from the judgments afore-noted,
certain activities of the private body or Corporation are also capable to
control reduce or expand the entitlements. These exercises of power
could be classified as a sovereign or State function.
43. On the other hand, 'public duty' refers to a correlative
'public right' based on the jural correlatives as legal position,
expounded by Wesley N. Hohfeld. In the context of governance or
discharge of Governmental function, the 'public right' is synonymous
with 'legal obligation'. The public duty thus, is a public function or a
legal obligation discharged by a public servant under the command of
public right. These public rights necessarily, presuppose existence of
positive law of the State or valid Governmental directions. The "public
right" or "legal obligation" cannot exist in vaccum, the "right" or "legal
obligation" must be relatable to law or an authorised function by the
Government. Thus, public duty discharged by a public servant is based
on the positive law of the State or valid executive directions.
44. In every discharge of public duty, there is an element of
sovereign function, State function or public function. However, in
discharge of sovereign or State function, none could assign that there is
a public duty being discharged in that function. This denotes exercise of
"power". Legislature, collectively discharges sovereign or State
function. A Member of Parliament or a Member of a Legislative
Assembly individually discharges a public duty individually, as his
activity is accountable under the ordinary law. Legislative exercise
cannot be considered as a public duty. On the other hand, it can be
treated only as an exercise of power.
45. It is on an analysis of the above legal concepts that the
provisions under the PC Act have to be adverted. Thus, public duty
under the PC Act refers to discharge of duty in relation to State, public
or community at larger interest. Thus, a public servant must be under
the positive command under the law to discharge such a duty. If a body
or Corporation exercises a State function, without obligation under the
existing laws, it is only an exercise of State function and cannot be
treated as a discharge of public duty.
46. In the construction of the stadium to hold cricket matches to
be viewed by public, no doubt the community at large has interest. By
the construction of the stadium, the KCA controls and regulates,
entitlement of men to the extent of rules and regulations laid down by
them for admission in the stadium. The stadium is being constructed for
the public; the activities are controlled by KCA; no doubt, the
construction has to be styled as a State function or a public function. If
the stadium is constructed based on any positive laws or under the
direction of the Government, certainly that function would come within
the ambit of public duty. However, if the stadium is not constructed
under an existing legal obligation or by Governmental direction, that
State function cannot be treated as a public duty."
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 22 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
The arguments before us:
6. In the writ appeals before us, preferred by the State of Kerala
and the de facto complainants, the main contention urged is with
regard to the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge while
coming to the conclusion that the office bearers of the Kerala Cricket
Association are not public servants within the meaning of the phrase
under the PC Act. They point out that the distinction drawn by the
learned Single Judge between a public duty mandated by the positive
law or executive instructions of the State and a public duty that is not,
was wholly irrelevant in the context of the PC Act that did not make a
distinction between various forms of public duty and was enacted with
the avowed object of removing corruption from public service. Reliance
is placed on the judgments in State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai
Kanjibhai Shah - [(2020) 20 SCC 360]; Aman Bhatia v. State
(GNCT of Delhi) - [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013]; Board of Control
for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors. -
[(2015) 3 SCC 251]; Zee Telefilms Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India &
Ors. - [(2005) 4 SCC 649]; Sukhdev & Ors v. Bhagatram Sardar
Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr. - [(1975) 1 SCC 421].
7. Per contra, the respondent writ petitioners would support the
findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and
contend that the writ appeals lack merit and are only to be dismissed.
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 23 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
They also point out that the definition of 'public duty' under the PC act
is vague and hence cannot be the basis for fastening a penal liability on
persons under the PC Act. They rely on the decisions in Kartar Singh
v. State of Punjab - [(1994) 3 SCC 569]; Tolaram Relumal v. State
of Bombay - [(1954) 1 SCC 961]; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh
Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjayya - [(1990) 4 SCC 76]; State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Vengu Reddy - [(2002) 7 SCC 631] and
Pannyan Raveendran v. Shamnad - [2023 (3) KHC 124] in support
of the said contention. Alternatively, they would contend that, even if it
is found that the office bearers of the Kerala Cricket Association can be
"public servants" for the purposes of the PC Act, the proceedings
initiated against them would nevertheless have to be quashed since the
averments in the complaints before the Special Courts did not make out
an offence against them. It is pointed out that the learned Single Judge
did not go into this aspect only because he had found the proceedings
to be vitiated on the ground that the writ petitioners were not public
servants within the meaning of the term under the PC Act.
8. We have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel,
Sri.Martin Jose, Sri.John K. George and Sri.T.T.Muhamood, the learned
counsel for the appellants, Sri.T.B.Hood and Sri.K.N.Abhilash, the
learned counsel for the respondent Cricket Association, Sri.A.Rajesh,
the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) and Smt.S.Rekha,
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 24 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
the learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent State and
Sri.C.Dinesh, the learned Central Government Counsel for the
respondent Union of India. We have also meticulously perused the
pleadings, the impugned judgment and the precedents cited before us
by the learned counsel.
Discussion and Findings:
9. In his foreword to the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption that was adopted by the UN General Assembly in October,
2003, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi A Annan, described
corruption as an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive
effects on societies; that it undermines democracy and the rule of law,
leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality
of life and allows organised crime, terrorism and other threats to
human security to flourish. India ratified the said Convention and
thereafter, the PC Act was amended in 2018 with a view to bringing the
Act in line with current international practices and to meet more
effectively the country's obligations under the aforesaid Convention. As
it stands today, the object of the PC Act is not only to prevent the social
evil of bribery and corruption, but also to make the same applicable to
individuals who might conventionally not be considered as public
servants. The purpose under the PC Act is to shift focus from those
who traditionally answered to the description of public officials to even
individuals who perform public duties [See: State of Gujarat v.
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 25 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah - [(2020) 20 SCC 360]; Aman
Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi) - [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013]].
10. The Kerala Cricket Association being a society registered
under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable
Societies Act, affiliated to, and functioning under the administrative
control of, the Board for Control of Cricket in India [BCCI], has aims
and objects similar to that of the BCCI and accordingly functions to
instill, promote and propagate interest in cricket among the people; to
popularise, regulate and control cricket in the State; to participate in,
conduct and regulate matches and tournaments; to arrange for
coaching of players; to train and maintain a panel of umpires; to
organise and affiliate District Cricket Associations; and to resort to all
such measures and do all such acts as are conducive to the furtherance
of Cricket. In Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket
Association of Bihar & Ors. - [(2015) 3 SCC 251] the Supreme
Court found that although the BCCI would not answer to the
description of "State" within the meaning of that term under Article 12
of the Constitution of India, it would nevertheless be amenable to the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 thereof, on account of the public
duties discharged by it that included controlling the activities of players
and others involved in the game of cricket. Referring to its own earlier
judgment in Zee Telefilms Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. -
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 26 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
[(2005) 4 SCC 649], the Court found as follows at para 30 of its
judgment:
"30. The majority view thus favours the view that BCCI is
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 even
when it is not 'State' within the meaning of Art.12. The rationale
underlying that view if we may say with utmost respect lies in the
"nature of duties and functions" which the BCCI performs. It is
common ground that the respondent - Board has a complete sway over
the game of cricket in this country. It regulates and controls the game
to the exclusion of all others. It formulates rules, regulations norms and
standards covering all aspect of the game. It enjoys the power of
choosing the members of the national team and the umpires. It
exercises the power of disqualifying players which may at times put an
end to the sporting career of a person. It spends crores of rupees on
building and maintaining infrastructure like stadia, running of cricket
academies and Supporting State Associations. It frames pension
schemes and incurs expenditure on coaches, trainers etc. It sells
broadcast and telecast rights and collects admission fee to venues
where the matches are played. All these activities are undertaken with
the tacit concurrence of the State Government and the Government of
India who are not only fully aware but supportive of the activities of the
Board. The State has not chosen to bring any law or taken any other
step that would either deprive or dilute the Board's monopoly in the
field of cricket. On the contrary, the Government of India have allowed
the Board to select the national team which is then recognized by all
concerned and applauded by the entire nation including at times by the
highest of the dignitaries when they win tournaments and bring laurels
home. Those distinguishing themselves in the international arena are
conferred highest civilian awards like the Bharat Ratna, Padma
Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri apart from sporting
awards instituted by the Government. Such is the passion for this game
in this country that cricketers are seen as icons by youngsters, middle
aged and the old alike. Any organization or entity that has such
pervasive control over the game and its affairs and such powers as can
make dreams end up in smoke or come true cannot be said to be
undertaking any private activity. The functions of the Board are clearly
public functions, which, till such time the State intervenes to takeover
the same, remain in the nature of public functions, no matter
discharged by a society registered under the Registration of Societies
Act. Suffice it to say that if the Government not only allows an
autonomous/private body to discharge functions which it could in law
takeover or regulate but even lends its assistance to such a non-
government body to undertake such functions which by their very
nature are public functions, it cannot be said that the functions are not
public functions or that the entity discharging the same is not
answerable on the standards generally applicable to judicial review of
State action. Our answer to question No.1, therefore, is in the
negative, qua, the first part and affirmative qua the second. BCCI may
not be State under Art.12 of the Constitution but is certainly amenable
to writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India."
(emphasis supplied)
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 27 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
11. Following the same line of reasoning and taking note of its
affiliation with the BCCI and the similarity in the aims and objectives
pursued by it, we see no reason to think that the Kerala Cricket
Association would not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. The question then arises as to whether a public duty
discharged by the Kerala Cricket Association, which is subject to
constitutional limitations and must withstand a scrutiny in judicial
review proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought
to be excluded from a scrutiny under the PC Act ? As already noticed,
the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment opined that it
should, based on the distinction drawn between a public duty mandated
by the positive law or executive instructions of the State and a similar
public duty discharged by a private body without the mandate of the
positive law of the State.
13. We might observe in this connection that the distinction
drawn in Zee Telefilms Ltd (supra), and accepted in BCCI (supra),
between public duties that are in the nature of State functions and
other public duties, was in the context of determining whether or not
the entity discharging such functions answered to the description of
"State" within the meaning of that term under Article 12 of the
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 28 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
Constitution of India. The definition of "State" under Article 12 takes in
not only the Central and State Governments and the Union Territories
but also other 'instrumentalities of the State', and it was to distinguish
between the State, as understood in the traditional sense of the term,
and other bodies discharging public duties that the distinction was
drawn. This is clear from a reading of the judgment in Zee Telefilms
Ltd (supra), where while repelling the argument that the BCCI was
discharging public duties which are in the nature of State functions and
would therefore answer to the description of "State" under Article 12,
the Supreme Court found as follows at paragraph 29 of its judgment:
"29. It was then argued that the Board discharges public duties
which are in the nature of State functions. Elaborating on this
argument it was pointed out that the Board selects a team to represent
India in international matches. The Board makes rules that govern the
activities of the cricket players, umpires and other persons involved in
the activities of cricket. These, according to the petitioner, are all in the
nature of State functions and an entity which discharges such functions
can only be an instrumentality of State, therefore, the Board falls within
the definition of State for the purpose of Art.12. Assuming that the
abovementioned functions of the Board do amount to public duties or
State functions, the question for our consideration is: would this be
sufficient to hold the Board to be a State for the purpose of Art.12?
While considering this aspect of the argument of the petitioner, it
should be borne in mind that the State / Union has not chosen the
Board to perform these duties nor has it legally authorised the Board to
carry out these functions under any law or agreement. It has chosen to
leave the activities of cricket to be controlled by private bodies out of
such bodies' own volition (self arrogated). In such circumstances when
the actions of the Board are not actions as an authorised representative
of the State, can it be said that the Board is discharging State functions
? The answer should be no. In the absence of any authorisation, if a
private body chooses to discharge any such function which is not
prohibited by law then it would be incorrect to hold that such action of
the body would make it an instrumentality of the State. The Union of
India has tried to make out a case that the Board discharges these
functions because of the de facto recognition granted by it to the Board
under the guidelines framed by it, but the Board has denied the same.
In this regard we must hold that the Union of India has failed to prove
that there is any recognition by the Union of India under the guidelines
framed by it, and that the Board is discharging these functions on its
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 29 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
own as an autonomous body." (emphasis supplied)
14. Thus, the distinction drawn by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment was relevant only in the context of a
determination as to whether the body discharging public duty was a
'State' or 'other instrumentality' for the purposes of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. The said distinction can have no relevance to an
interpretation of the terms 'public duty' and 'public servant' under the
PC Act.
15. We are of the view that, given the aims and objectives of the
PC Act, that has been amended in 2018 with a view to bringing the Act
in line with current international practices and to meet more effectively
the country's obligations under the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption, the concept of public duty envisaged thereunder cannot be
understood save against the backdrop of the public accountability of
public servants that it seeks to achieve. While it may be that the
original idea of public duty was merely a duty to obey the law of the
land, the concept has since evolved into a duty to serve the public
under the law. Public accountability is the constitutional instrument by
which that transformation became real, ensuring that all public power
remains a trust exercised on behalf of the people. In a democratic
republic such as ours, governed by the rule of law, one cannot conceive
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 30 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
of the discharge of a public duty without a corresponding obligation to
act responsibly by keeping the interests of the general public in mind.
It was in this vein that Mathew, J. in Sukhdev & Ors v. Bhagatram
Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr. - [(1975) 1 SCC 421] famously
observed that the governing power wherever situated must be subject
to constitutional limitations. Over the years, this idea has only been
reinforced in our constitutional jurisprudence through the shift to a
culture of justification where citizens are now seen entitled to seek
justification for state action instead of merely looking to whether the
action complained of was taken by a person who had the legal authority
to act. Conceptually, public duty is now seen as a constitutional trust
reposed in all holders of public power and it is through the discipline of
public accountability that the exercise of public power retains its
legitimacy. If that public duty can be tested for its accountability and
legitimacy in judicial proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, as settled through the decisions in Zee Telefilms Ltd (supra)
and BCCI (supra) then surely that duty should also adhere to the
standards prescribed under the PC Act. To assume otherwise would be
an affront to the concept of good governance that is an integral aspect
of the rule of law which, in turn, is recognised as a basic feature of our
Constitution.
16. We might also notice in this connection that in an earlier
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 31 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
round of litigation, when the Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur had
returned a similar complaint preferred against the office bearers of the
Kerala Cricket Association by finding that they would not be 'public
servants' under the PC Act, a Single Judge of this Court vide judgment
dated 26.10.2010 in Crl.M.C.No.2726 of 2009 set aside the impugned
order of the Special Jude (Vigilance) after finding that the office bearers
of the Kerala Cricket Association would be 'public servants' for the
purposes of the PC Act and remitted the matter to the Special Court for
consideration on the merits of the complaint. We are told that the SLP
preferred against the said judgment in Crl.M.C.No.2726 of 2009 was
dismissed by the Supreme Court. The above developments also serve
to fortify our finding that the office bearers of the Kerala Cricket
Association would be 'public servants' within the meaning of the term
under Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act, 1988 in relation to the public
duties discharged by them.
17. While the above findings would have sufficed to dispose
these writ appeals, the learned counsel for the respondent writ
petitioners have urged us to consider their alternate plea in the writ
petitions as regards quashing of the proceedings before the Special
Court, including the FIR's filed therein, on the ground that the
allegations in the complaint do not make out an offence under the PC
Act. We are afraid the said contention does not appeal to us since on a
perusal of the complaints that have been produced as Exhibits in the
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 32 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
writ petitions, there are clear averments to the effect that the
respondent writ petitioners are public servants; that the Association of
which they are office bearers was receiving financial assistance from
the State Government; that the Association was engaged in the
discharge of duties in connection with the promotion of Cricket that
have been recognised as public duties by various judgments of the High
Court and the Supreme Court; and that the writ petitioners have
obtained undue pecuniary advantages through their activities in
connection with the purchase of land for purported construction of a
cricket stadium. The said averments, if proved, definitely make out an
offence under the PC Act. We therefore do not see any reason to
exercise our discretion to quash the proceedings before the Special
Courts.
18. We are also not persuaded to accept the contention of the
petitioners and hold that the definition of 'public duty' under the PC Act
is either vague or uncertain. The definition of the phrase under the Act
is quite clear albeit couched in wide terms. The scope and ambit of the
definition is one that a court must consider when called upon to
determine the applicability of the provisions of the Act to particular
factual situations. We do not find any inherent ambiguity in the phrase
as defined under the PC Act that would lead us to strike down the
statutory provision itself as vague or uncertain.
W.A.Nos.1921. 2277, 2381
& 2382/2015 & 351, 382, :: 33 ::
682 & 1083 of 2017
2025:KER:81601
The upshot of the above discussions is that we allow these writ
appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single
Judge and dismissing the writ petitions as devoid of merit.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
prp/
