Supreme Court Rules Eden Gardens Not a Public Place in Landmark 29-Year-Old Case.

In a ruling that settles a 29-year-old dispute, the Supreme Court has declared that Eden Gardens Stadium in Kolkata cannot be considered a "public place" for the purpose of advertisement tax. The decision, delivered on Friday, upholds a Calcutta High Court verdict that quashed a ₹51-lakh tax demand issued to the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) for advertisements displayed during the 1996 Wills World Cup.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed an appeal filed by the KMC, affirming the 2025 order of the Calcutta High Court. The court stated that merely because the public can enter the stadium by purchasing a ticket, it does not automatically qualify as a public place. The bench questioned KMC's counsel, asking if advertisements inside a hotel or a house would constitute public property simply because people could view them.

The core of the dispute revolved around Section 204 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which stipulates that advertisement tax can only be levied if the advertisements are visible from a public street or place. The Supreme Court bench emphasized that the advertisements in question were placed inside the stadium, where access is restricted. "This is inside a stadium and there is no unrestricted access there," the court observed. Consequently, the court declined KMC's request to keep the legal questions open for future adjudication. Senior advocate Rakeev Shakdher represented CAB in the proceedings.

The Supreme Court's order reinforces the Calcutta High Court's findings, which had dismissed KMC's appeal and upheld the single judge's decision to quash the 1996 tax demand notice in June 2025. The case originated from advertisements displayed inside Eden Gardens during the inaugural ceremony of the 1996 Wills World Cup. The KMC argued that since the stadium was accessible to the public, it should be considered a public place for taxation purposes. However, both the High Court and the Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the element of restricted access.


Written By
Kavya Iyer is a storyteller at heart, driven by a curiosity to uncover the human experiences that shape the world of sports. Her writing connects audiences to the determination and resilience of athletes at all levels. Kavya’s balanced reporting style blends insight, empathy, and impact. She believes great sports journalism inspires as much as it informs.
Advertisement

Latest Post


Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About   •   Terms   •   Privacy
© 2025 SportsBuzz360