BCCI VS. CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
| Citation | 3 SCC 251 |
| Date Of Judgement | 18 July 2016 |
| Court | Supreme Court Of India |
| Case Type | Civil Appeal No. 4235 Of 2014 |
| Petitioner | Board Of Control For Cricket |
| Respondent | Cricket Association Of Bihar And Ors. |
| Bench | T.S. Thakur, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla |
Facts Of The Case-
The BCCI in 2007 decided to launch the Indian premier league (IPL) and in a subsequent meeting held on 27th September 2008, decided to appoint Mr. N. Srinivasan as Secretary of BCCI. In April 2013, Delhi Police received information in relation to spot fixing in IPL and Charges were levelled against Raj Kundra, The owner of Rajasthan Royals and Gurunath Meiyappan, The son in law of N. Srinivasan(Current BCCI President) also the Owner of The IPL team Chennai Super Kings. Then BCCI constituted a Probe Committee consisting of Retired Judges of Madras High Court.
Meanwhile, Cricket Association Of Bihar filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Bombay High Court seeking the appointment of the retired Supreme Court Judges in the panel of probe Committee and also prayed for termination of contract of IPL franchises Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals with BCCI and Initiation of Disciplinary proceeding against N. Srinivasan( Current President Of BCCI)
The Bombay High Court Did not agreed with the view point of Cricket Association Of Bihar and did not gave It’s Judgement in Favor Of them. Disappointed by the High Court Of Bombay Decision , Then The Cricket Association Of Bihar Moved to the Supreme Court Of India.
ISSUES-
- Whether or not BCCI was ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and if not, whether it was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
- Whether or not Amendment to Rule 6.2.4 of IPL regulations was, to the extent it permitted administrators to have commercial interest in the IPL, Champions League and Twenty-20 events, illegal.
ARGUMENTS-
the actions taken by the Mudgal Committee, which found certain individuals and franchisees guilty in relation to cricket-related matters. The committee, through an order dated 14th July 2015, issued appropriate punishments for those found guilty.Additionally, the Justice Lodha Committee, in a separate report dated 18th December 2015, examined the role of Mr. Sundar Raman and exonerated him from the charges against him. The committee’s primary objective was to recommend changes to the rules and regulations of BCCI to safeguard the interests of the public in the sport of cricket. It aimed to improve ethical standards, discipline, and efficiency in the management of BCCI, promote transparency and accessibility, prevent conflicts of interest, and eliminate political and commercial interference.
To achieve its objectives, the committee followed a rigorous and comprehensive process. It distributed a detailed questionnaire to various stakeholders, including fans, patrons of the game, and others involved in cricket administration. The questions were based on the Supreme Court’s main judgment, existing BCCI rules, and media reports that highlighted flaws and loopholes in cricket administration in India. The questionnaire covered areas of concern, such as organization and structure, jurisdiction, offices and committees, commercial engagements, finances, player welfare, conflict of interest, and transparency.
The committee conducted over 35 days of sittings in different cities, allowing representatives from various zones and primary Test Centers to participate conveniently. Moreover, the committee interacted with 75 individuals, including former captains, international and first-class players, coaches, managers, administrators, journalists, talent scouts, authors, lawyers, club owners, selectors, and a former Chief Justice of a High Court. These interactions provided valuable insights and suggestions, which were carefully considered by the committee.
In addition to the questionnaire responses and interactions, the committee also researched various media reports, documentaries, published materials, draft legislations, books, articles, and unsolicited missives from cricket fans and local experts. This extensive research provided the committee with an in-depth understanding of the prevailing maladministration issues in cricket across the country Based on its findings, the committee identified widespread complaints of defalcation and siphoning of funds, opaqueness in administration, blatant favoritism, and political interference in almost all State Associations, with varying degrees of severity in different regions. This highlighted the urgent need for reform to address these issues and restore integrity to the game.
To devise effective recommendations, the committee compared international sports policies and the structures of their respective governing bodies. This comparative analysis aimed to learn from best practices and implement measures that could check conflicts of interest, enforce ethics, and enhance the overall functioning of BCCI.The recommendations made by the committee were met with both support and opposition from various parties and intervenors. Organizations and individuals, such as Mr. B.S. Bedi, Mr. Kirti Azad, Cricket Association of Pondicherry, and the Cricket Association of Bihar, supported the committee’s suggestions. They sought acceptance of the recommendations and the implementation of necessary follow-up actions In response to the committee’s report and recommendations, the BCCI and other relevant parties were issued notices to provide their feedback and responses. This demonstrated the committee’s commitment to ensuring a fair and transparent process in implementing reforms.
JUDGEMENT-
The answer to the first issue was in negative as the Court excluded BCCI from the definition of the word ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.
However, the Court observed that the BCCI even though not a ‘State’ under Article 12, the BCCI did perform certain public functions like selection of the team to represent the country in international arena and had a complete sway on the game of cricket which made it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
The Court on the next issue on amendment of Regulation of 6.2.4 which enunciated that, “except Indian Premier League and Champions League Twenty 20, no administrator, officer, player or umpire shall have any direct or indirect commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the board”, observed that:-
“An amendment which strikes at the very essence of the game as stated in the Anti-Corruption Code cannot obviously co-exist with the fundamental imperatives. Conflict of interest situation is a complete anti-thesis to everything recognized by BCCI as constituting fundamental imperatives of the game hence unsustainable and impermissible in law” which means that the Court held that the amendment done by the BCCI was contradicting its own fundamental principles and rules thus could not be permissible in law.
written by Saurabh Sharma an intern under legal vidhiya.
