The legal and constitutional implications of the Goa State Cabinet’s decision to lease the Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Indoor Stadium to a private entertainment company for commercial activities necessitate legal evaluation.
The stadium in question was constructed by the State Government of Goa for the 2014 Lusofonia Games and is located on the Goa University campus.
It has a seating capacity of approximately 4,000 and is owned and administered by the Sports Authority of Goa, a statutory body under the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs.
A lease of this public sports infrastructure to a private entity has been approved, raising questions about whether such public infrastructure can be lawfully commercialised while upholding constitutional principles and public interest.
It has to be noted that under India’s constitutional scheme, the State Government has authority over public infrastructure of this nature. “Sports, entertainments and amusements” are matters falling within the State List (Seventh Schedule, List II), and more generally, “works, lands and buildings vested in or in the possession of the State” fall under the State’s legislative domain.
In principle, a State Government may therefore lease or enter into a public-private partnership (PPP) involving a state-owned stadium.
However, such action must conform to legal doctrines that safeguard public purpose.
Key among these are:
● the public trust doctrine,
● the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and
● the requirements of non-arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion subject to judicial review.
Under the public trust doctrine, certain resources and properties held by the government are deemed to be held in trust for the benefit of the public. Originally applied to natural resources such as rivers and forests, this doctrine has been recognised in Indian law by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997).
In that case, it was held that the State is the trustee of resources meant for public use and that leasing an ecologically fragile riverbank to a private motel constituted a breach of that trust.
By analogy, a state-owned sports stadium—though not a natural resource—carries a public character, having been constructed with public funds for a defined purpose: the promotion of sporting activities and youth development. If diverted toward predominantly commercial ends, such as wedding receptions and private expos, the State’s action may attract judicial scrutiny.
A similar conclusion was reached in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999), wherein the Supreme Court quashed the municipal authority’s decision to lease a public park for the construction of an underground commercial complex. The Court emphasised that public recreational spaces are not mere surplus land but assets of constitutional significance.
The Court’s observations clarify that governmental authorities cannot dispose of or repurpose public assets in a manner that deprives the community of their intended use and benefit.
The question therefore arises whether a similar principle applies to a stadium situated on a university campus, where its commercialisation could impede students’ access to sports facilities.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is another important consideration.
Stakeholders such as student athletes, sports federations, and university faculty may have a legitimate expectation that infrastructure developed with public funds, especially within an academic campus, would continue to be used primarily for sports and educational purposes.
This doctrine has been recognised by the Supreme Court as flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees fairness in state action.
In practice, the doctrine prevents public authorities from frustrating established policies or expected conduct without compelling justification. Where no overriding public interest is shown, a sudden departure from established use of public facilities may be viewed as unfair and arbitrary.
At the same time, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is not absolute. The Supreme Court has held that legitimate expectations must yield where the broader public interest so demands. It is in this context that the Goa Government’s justification of “optimal utilisation” and “improved maintenance” through the PPP model assumes relevance.
However, the burden lies upon the State to demonstrate how such a partnership continues to uphold the original public purpose.
Administrative discretion to lease public property is also subject to constitutional limitations. The Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K (1980) observed that state largesse must not be distributed arbitrarily and that all public contracts and leases must be awarded in conformity with Article 14.
The decision-making process must therefore be transparent, reasoned, and devoid of favouritism. Where discretion is exercised without due regard for fairness or consultation with affected stakeholders, the decision becomes vulnerable to judicial review.
More recently, the Supreme Court in Krishan Lal Gera v. State of Haryana (2011) examined a case involving the sub-leasing of a public stadium in Faridabad for non-sporting activities, including bars and private clubs. The Court took note of the misuse and expressed serious concern over the alienation of public sports infrastructure for elite commercial ventures. It was emphasised that stadiums are public spaces meant to foster athletic development and community engagement, not avenues for exclusive private profits.
The invocation of a public-private partnership model does not immunise a lease arrangement from scrutiny.
While PPPs can indeed offer infrastructure efficiency and fiscal relief, they must not result in the exclusion of the very public they were intended to serve. In this instance, the stadium’s location within the Goa University campus elevates its functional relevance to students and educators.
If the terms of the lease restrict or diminish university access, or subordinate sports development to entertainment shows, the PPP model itself may be challenged as being ultra vires its purpose.
The law does not prohibit the leasing of public infrastructure for commercial utilisation. However, such action must meet a cumulative standard of legality, fairness, and public justification. The action must comply with the public trust doctrine, honour legitimate expectations, and survive the test of Article 14.
Revenue generation, while a legitimate aim, cannot be the sole criterion for disposing of public infrastructure in ways that compromise its original purpose. If the lease confers near-exclusive commercial access upon a private lessee, or fails to guarantee continued availability of the facility for public sports and university events, it may amount to a breach of fiduciary responsibility.
Ultimately, any privatisation or lease of public infrastructure must uphold the government’s position as a trustee of public interest. Judicial precedent affirms that infrastructure built by the State for the public must continue to be used to benefit that public unless an overriding justification is established.
A lawful PPP is not merely a financial agreement but a continuation of public policy through alternate means.
The Goa Government’s decision to lease the Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Stadium will be judged not just by its profitability, but by whether it sustains the spirit of constitutional governance and the foundational commitment to public welfare.
