# BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS v. CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 9 S.C.R. 526
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-08-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dipak Misra, A. M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/board-of-control-for-cricket-in-india-and-ors-v-cricket-association-of-bihar-ors-33080
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Sports - Cricket - Reforms in the administration of - Draft
Constitution for Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)-
Reforms in the administration of cricket proposed by a Committee
chaired by Justice Shri R. M. Lodha - Accepted by Supreme Court
in Board of Control for Cricket in India versus Cricket Association
of Bihar reported as [2015] 1 SCR 165 - A Committee of
Administrators (CoA) entrusted to prepare the draft Constitution -
CoA filed draft Constitution for BCCI and its office bearers -
Suggestions to the draft received from various stakeholders - Held:
Three cricket associations each in the State of Maharashtra
(Maharashtra, Mumbai and Vidarbha) and in Gujarat (Gujarat,
Baroda and Saurashtra) have long and abiding history of
nurturing talent for cricket in India - Full membership in the
Constitution of the BCCI is restored to the aforesaid associations -
However, the decision not to grant the status of full members to the
National Cricket Club and the Cricket Club of India is maintained
- Contribution of Railway Sports Promotion Board (Railways) to
the cause of Indian Cricket is noteworthy - Amendment proposed
by the amicus to the draft Constitution with regard to Railways is
accepted - Having regard to the pre-eminent position occupied by
the Services Sports Control Board including the Army, Navy and
Air Force in propagating the cause of cricket, the same principle
followed in the case of Railways to be followed in their case also -
Full membership is also granted to the Association of Indian
Universities - Number of selectors modified from three to five -
Term for all posts of office bearers in BCCI and in State
Associations shall be three years - There shall be a cooling off
period of three years after an individual has held the post of an
office bearer for two consecutive terms either in a State Association
 [2018] 9 S.C.R. 526
 526
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
or in the BCCI or a combination of both - Further, Clause 15 (1) in
regard to the Apex Council responsible for the administration of
the Board, approved - In regard to disqualifications, Clauses 29,
33(1), 33(2) and 45 of the draft Constitution proposed with
modifications, approved - Further directions issued.
Reforms in the administration of Cricket were proposed
by a Committee chaired by Justice Shri R.M. Lodha. The reforms
were accepted by Supreme Court in its judgment dated 18th July,
2016 in Board of Control for Cricket in India versus Cricket
Association of Bihar reported as [2015] 1 SCR 165. Supreme
Court directed that a Committee of Administrators (CoA) shall
supervise the administration of Board of Control for Cricket in
India (BCCI). The CoA was constituted. On 24th July, 2017,
Supreme Court inter alia directed that recommendations of the
Lodha Committee be implemented. The CoA was entrusted to
prepare a draft Constitution in accordance with the judgment
rendered on 18th July, 2016 and the order dated 24th July, 2017.
Suggestions received to the draft from various stakeholders were
filed by the CoA, together with comments on the proposed
suggestions, in status report dated 12th January, 2018.
On 5th July, 2018, Supreme Court reserved orders on the
question of finalizing the draft Constitution.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: A. Issues relating to membership and Associate
Membership: One State-One Vote
1.1 Rule (3)(a)(i) of the draft Constitution contemplates that
membership of BCCI shall consist of (i) Full members and; (ii)
Associate members. Historically in the State of Maharashtra,
there have been three associations, each of which fields its own
cricket team in the Ranji Trophy: (i) Maharashtra; (ii) Mumbai
and; (iii) Vidarbha. Similarly, in the State of Gujarat, there have
been three associations representing: (i) Gujarat; (ii) Baroda;
and (iii) Saurashtra. In both the States, these associations have
made a signal contribution to the cricketing history of the nation.
Besides, fielding teams for the Ranji Trophy, these associations
have prod

## Text

_Characters 0–39,928 of 74,482. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39928 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS.
v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014)
AUGUST 09, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Sports - Cricket - Reforms in the administration of - Draft
Constitution for Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)-
Reforms in the administration of cricket proposed by a Committee
chaired by Justice Shri R. M. Lodha - Accepted by Supreme Court
in Board of Control for Cricket in India versus Cricket Association
of Bihar reported as [2015] 1 SCR 165 - A Committee of
Administrators (CoA) entrusted to prepare the draft Constitution -
CoA filed draft Constitution for BCCI and its office bearers -
Suggestions to the draft received from various stakeholders - Held:
Three cricket associations each in the State of Maharashtra
(Maharashtra, Mumbai and Vidarbha) and in Gujarat (Gujarat,
Baroda and Saurashtra) have long and abiding history of
nurturing talent for cricket in India - Full membership in the
Constitution of the BCCI is restored to the aforesaid associations -
However, the decision not to grant the status of full members to the
National Cricket Club and the Cricket Club of India is maintained
- Contribution of Railway Sports Promotion Board (Railways) to
the cause of Indian Cricket is noteworthy - Amendment proposed
by the amicus to the draft Constitution with regard to Railways is
accepted - Having regard to the pre-eminent position occupied by
the Services Sports Control Board including the Army, Navy and
Air Force in propagating the cause of cricket, the same principle
followed in the case of Railways to be followed in their case also -
Full membership is also granted to the Association of Indian
Universities - Number of selectors modified from three to five -
Term for all posts of office bearers in BCCI and in State
Associations shall be three years - There shall be a cooling off
period of three years after an individual has held the post of an
office bearer for two consecutive terms either in a State Association
 [2018] 9 S.C.R. 526
 526
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
or in the BCCI or a combination of both - Further, Clause 15 (1) in
regard to the Apex Council responsible for the administration of
the Board, approved - In regard to disqualifications, Clauses 29,
33(1), 33(2) and 45 of the draft Constitution proposed with
modifications, approved - Further directions issued.
Reforms in the administration of Cricket were proposed
by a Committee chaired by Justice Shri R.M. Lodha. The reforms
were accepted by Supreme Court in its judgment dated 18th July,
2016 in Board of Control for Cricket in India versus Cricket
Association of Bihar reported as [2015] 1 SCR 165. Supreme
Court directed that a Committee of Administrators (CoA) shall
supervise the administration of Board of Control for Cricket in
India (BCCI). The CoA was constituted. On 24th July, 2017,
Supreme Court inter alia directed that recommendations of the
Lodha Committee be implemented. The CoA was entrusted to
prepare a draft Constitution in accordance with the judgment
rendered on 18th July, 2016 and the order dated 24th July, 2017.
Suggestions received to the draft from various stakeholders were
filed by the CoA, together with comments on the proposed
suggestions, in status report dated 12th January, 2018.
On 5th July, 2018, Supreme Court reserved orders on the
question of finalizing the draft Constitution.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: A. Issues relating to membership and Associate
Membership: One State-One Vote
1.1 Rule (3)(a)(i) of the draft Constitution contemplates that
membership of BCCI shall consist of (i) Full members and; (ii)
Associate members. Historically in the State of Maharashtra,
there have been three associations, each of which fields its own
cricket team in the Ranji Trophy: (i) Maharashtra; (ii) Mumbai
and; (iii) Vidarbha. Similarly, in the State of Gujarat, there have
been three associations representing: (i) Gujarat; (ii) Baroda;
and (iii) Saurashtra. In both the States, these associations have
made a signal contribution to the cricketing history of the nation.
Besides, fielding teams for the Ranji Trophy, these associations
have produced players of national and international repute. It is
necessary to restore full membership in the constitution of the
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
BCCI to the three associations each in the State of Maharashtra
(Maharashtra, Mumbai and Vidarbha) and in Gujarat (Gujarat,
Baroda and Saurashtra). The associations of Baroda, Saurashtra,
Mumbai and Vidarbha have a long and abiding history of nurturing
talent for the game of cricket in India. The history of cricket in
India is replete with their contribution to the cause of cricket.
These associations have produced players who have brought
laurels to their States and to the nation. The principle of
territoriality requires that each of the States and Union Territories
should have full membership of BCCI in terms as suggested in
clause 3(a)(ii-B). This becomes a principle of inclusion. To utilise
territoriality as a basis of exclusion is problematic because it
ignores history and the contributions made by the above
associations to the development of cricket and its popularity.
Having due regard to the contributions made by Mumbai and
Vidarbha in the State of Maharashtra and by Baroda and Saurashtra
in the State of Gujarat to the game of cricket, it would be
appropriate to also grant them full membership of the BCCI.
However, the decision not to grant the status of full members to
the National Cricket Club and the Cricket Club of India is
maintained. Neither of the two Clubs fields teams in the Ranji
Trophy. They cannot be placed at par with the other State
Associations. [Paras 6, 9 and 10] [538-E-F; 541-G-H; 542-A-B,
G; 545-A-D]
Railways
1.2 The contribution of Railway Sports Promotion Board
("Railways") to the cause of Indian Cricket is noteworthy. The
amendment proposed by the amicus to the draft consitution is
accepted. It is clarified specifically that the representative from
Railways who would exercise voting power must be a former
cricketer who has represented Indian Railways and who is elected
by an association of former players from the Indian Railways and
not a person nominated by the government or the Railway Sports
Promotion Board. [Paras 11, 13 and 14] [545-D-E; 546-D, F-G]
Services and Association of Indian Universities
1.3 The Services Sports Control Board ("Services") team
represents the Armed Forces of the nation. The Services have a
long history of association with Indian sports in general and with
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
cricket as well. Having regard to the pre-eminent position
occupied by the Services including the Army, Navy and Air Force
in propagating the cause of sports and cricket, the same principle
which is followed in the case of Railways should be followed in
their case. Similarly, the Universities are a nucleus for
encouraging the game of cricket among players of the college
going generation in the country. Therefore, full membership to
the Association of Indian Universities is also granted. The
amendment which has been proposed to the draft Constitution
by the amicus in the case of the Railways shall be suitably modified
to also cover the Services and the Association of Indian
Universities. The representative respectively for Services and
the Association of Indian Universities shall be a former cricketer
who has played for them respectively and is elected by an
association of former players and not a person nominated by the
government/ sports control board. [Para 16] [547-G-H;
548-A-C]
B. Number of Selectors
1.4 The Lodha Committee restricted the number of
selectors to three. The Selection Committee is entrusted with
the responsibility of selecting cricket teams for participation at
various levels. Restricting the number of selectors to three was
recommended by the Lodha Committee with the specific purpose
of ensuring compactness of size, authority of decision making
and monitoring performance. While bearing these factors in
consideration, it is necessary to ensure that the purpose of a
broad-based Selection Committee which facilitates a careful
evaluation of the talent pool across the country is achieved. The
vast territory of the nation, the extent of cricket being played
both at the national and international level, the need for selectors
to travel extensively to spot talent from the pool of cricketers
and the need to encourage both domestic and international
cricket, are considerations which persuades acceptance of the
plea for modification in regard to the number of selectors to five.
The amicus has also supported the suggestion that the number
of selectors be increased to five. He however, also indicated that
this should be subject to the criteria of a selector having played a
minimum of (a) seven test matches; or (b) thirty first class
matches; or (c) ten One Day Internationals in the fifty over format
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
and a minimum of twenty first class matches. Accordingly the
proposed amendment as suggested by the amicus is accepted.
Until the elections to the BCCI take place, the Committee of
Administrators (CoA) is empowered to consult with the Cricket
Advisory Committee, comprising of reputed former international
cricketers and to constitute a Committee of Selectors consistent
with the above criteria. In regard to the appointment of coaches,
managers, physiotherapists and other staff, the modification
suggested in clause 24(5) is accepted. [Paras 17, 18, 21, 22 and
23] [548-C, D; 550-A-D; 551-F-G]
C. Cooling Off Period
1.5 The requirements that the term of office of an office
bearer should be three years; and that an individual should not
hold office in the BCCI for a period excess of nine years
(regardless of the post held) with a similar stipulation of nine
years for the State Associations is manifestly in public interest.
Both the stipulations are valuable safeguards to ensure against
the concentration of power. A cooling off period should be
observed. A cooling off period has several features which are of
utmost importance : (i) it is a safeguard against the development
of vested personal interests; (ii) it ensures against the
concentration of power in a few hands; (iii) it facilitates a dispersal
of authority; and (iv) it encourages the generation of a wider body
of experienced administrators. Cooling off must be accepted as a
means to prevent a few individuals from regarding the
administration of cricket as a personal turf. The game will be
better off without cricketing oligopolies. It would be appropriate
to direct that a cooling off period of three years would apply after
an individual holds two successive terms in office either in the
BCCI, or in any State Association or a combination of the two.
For instance, if an office bearer has held office for two consecutive
terms in any post in a State Association, such an individual must
face a cooling off period of three years. Likewise, if an individual
has held any post as an office bearer of the BCCI for a total period
of six years in succession, the individual must have a cooling off
period of three years before seeking election again either to the
BCCI or to a State Association. The cooling off period would
apply also in a situation where an individual holds a post for one
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
term in a State Association followed by a post in the BCCI
successively or vice versa. This would ensure that after a period
of six years involving two consecutive terms, a cooling off period
would be attracted. Allowing an individual to act as an office bearer
for six years in continuation, is a sufficiently long period for
experience and knowledge gained to be deployed in the interest
of the game without at the same time resulting in a monopoly of
power. The above principle shall govern Clause 6(4) as well as
Clause 14(4) of the draft Constitution. The above principle will
ensure that the cooling off period will come into operation upon a
person holding any post for two consecutive terms not exceeding
six years. [Paras 29, 32 and 33] [554-F-G; 555-E-H; 556-A-B,
D-E]
1.6 The position as approved in the present order shall be
to the following effect:
(i) The term for all posts of office bearers in BCCI and in
State Associations shall be three years; (ii) No person shall hold
the position of an office bearer in any State Association, regardless
of post, for a period in excess of nine years in the aggregate; (iii)
No person shall hold the post of office bearer in BCCI, regardless
of post, for a period in excess of nine years in the aggregate; (iv)
There shall be a cooling off period of three years after an individual
has held the post of an office bearer for two consecutive terms
either in a State Association or in the BCCI or a combination of
both; and (v) The expression 'office bearer' should not be
permitted to be circumvented by being a member of any other
committee or of the Governing Council in BCCI or any State
Association, as the case may be. [Para 34] [556-E-H; 557-A-B]
D. Division of Functions, Professional Management and
Disqualifications
1.7 The Apex Council is entrusted with the function of
professional management through the Chief Executive Officer,
the Chief Financial Officer and other officers who must be
recruited on a transparent and professional basis. Of the nine
members of the Apex Council, five (the President, Vice President,
Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and a member) are to be
elected by the General body. Clause 15 (1) in regard to the Apex
Council is approved. [Paras 35, 36] [557-B-C, F-H]
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
E. Disqualifications
1.8 In regard to disqualifications, the clause in the draft
Constitution as proposed with the incidental modifications as
suggested by the amicus is accepted. Clauses 29, 33(1), 33(2),
and 45 of the draft Constitution with the modifications are
approved. Once the draft Constitution has been approved by
Supreme Court, any amendment should not be given effect to
without the leave of Supreme Court. Having regard to the fact
that the draft Constitution submitted by the CoA on 27 October
2017 has now been approved by Supreme Court subject to the
aforesaid modifications, following directions are issued:
1. The Registrar of Societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act, 1975 shall upon the presentation of the
said Constitution by the CEO, register the documents
forthwith and report compliance by way of a report to the
Secretary General of Supreme Court within four weeks;
2. Upon the registration of the said Constitution of BCCI, each
of the members shall undertake registration of their
respective Constitutions on similar lines within a period of
30 days thereafter. A compliance certificate must be
furnished to the CoA, which shall file a status report before
Supreme Court with reference to the compliance
undertaken by the State Associations; and
3. In the event that any State Association does not undertake
compliance with the abovesaid directions, the directions
contained in the orders of Supreme Court dated 7 October
2016 and 21 October 2016 shall revive. [Paras 37-40]
[558-B, F; 559-E-H; 560-A-B]
1.9 The CoA is at liberty to submit a further report for such
future directions as may be warranted and to secure compliance.
[Para 41] [560-C]
Board of Control for Cricket in India v Cricket
Association of Bihar (2015) 3 SCC 251 : [2015] 1 SCR
165 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 1 SCR 165
 referred to
 Para 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4235
of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2013 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in PIL No. 55 of 2013
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos.4236 of 2014, Civil Appeal No.1155 of 2015,
Writ Petition (Civil) No.46 of 2017, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.47 of
2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 287 of
2017, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 959 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No.1155
of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1835 of 2017 in Civil Appeal
No. 4235 of 2014.
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Gopal Subramanium(AC), Parag Tripathi,
Chandra Uday Singh, Ranjit Kumar, Gopal Jain, P. R. Raman, Ajit Kumar
Sinha, K.V. Viswanathan, Puneet Bali, P.R. Raman, Ravindra Srivastava,
Sanjeev Sen, Rana Mukherjee, S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Advs., Ankur
Kashyap, Vivek Raja, Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Indranil Deshmukh, Adarsh
Saxena, Raunak Dhillon, Vikash Kumar Jha, Rishi Gautam, Kunal Bahri,
Rishav Kapur, Siddhant Sharma (for M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas),
Senthil Jagadeesan, Amol Chitale,Nirnimesh Dube, Abhishek Singh,
Gagan Gupta, Rajat Sehgal, Vikas Mehta, Ms. Vandana Anand,
Chandrashekhar Verma, Mithun, Pai Amit, Venkita Subramoniam T. R.,
Rahat Bansal, Anish R. Shah, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Nitesh Ranjan,
M. P. Vinod, Yadunandan Bansal, Reepak Kansal, Pratik R. Bombarde,
Rauf Rahim, K. K. Mohan, Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Mrs. Mamta Jain,
Uday Ram Bokadia, Rakesh Kumar Khare, Ms. Divya Garg, Sonal Jain,
Ranjith K.C., Abhilash K.N., V. K. Biju, Siddharth Garg, Snehasish
Mukherjee, R. Balasubramanian, Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Aarti Sharma,
Akshay Amritanshu, A.K. Sharma, M.K. Maroria, Gunjan Rishi, Aditya
Soni, Shree Pal Singh, Sarvesh Singh, Santosh Mishra, Santosh Kumar -
I, Ritesh Kumar Chowdhary, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal, Rajiv Nanda, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, R. Chandrachud,
Ms. Nitin Thukral, Praveen Swarup, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Mukesh
Kumar Maroria, Ms. Manju Sharma, Ragenth Basant, Ms. Liz Mathew,
Ashwin Shankar, Ms. Neela Gokhale, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, K.K.
Mohan, Gaurav Sharma, Gagan Gupta, E.C. Agrawala, Rahul Mehta,
Ms. Neha Sangwan, Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Chirag M. Shroff, Azim H.
Laskar, Bikash Kar Gupta, Sachin Das, Chandra Bhushan Prasad,
Mrs. Bina Gupta, Balaji Srinivasan, Abhishek Bharti, Ms. Vaishnavi
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
Subrahmanyam, Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Ms. Pallavi Sengupta,
Ms. Garima Jain, Anshuman Ashok, Pai Amit, Anish R. Shah, A.S.
Bhasme, Ms. Sonia Mathur, S. Hariharan, Tarun Gupta, Nikhil Nayyar,
Ninad Laud, Jayant Mohan, Anjuman Tripathy, Aditya Pratap Swain,
Gajendra Singh Negi, Deeptakirti Verma, Rabin Majumder, Pragyan
Sharma, Shikhar Garg, Chandan Gosawmi, P.V. Yogeswaran, M.P.
Devanath, Aditya Verma, Tribikram Meelee, Vikas Singh Jangra,
Ms. Tamali Wad, Rahul Pratap, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi,
M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Shreekant N. Terdal, Keshav Mohan,
Piyush Choudhary, Gaurav Kejriwal, Hrishikesh Baruah, Hement
Phalpher, Sudhir Mishra, Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. P. Chandhok, Prabhat
Kumar, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Ms. Aruna Mathur,
Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, (for M/s. Arputham Aruna
& Co.), Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. While pronouncing its
judgment on 18 July 2016 in Board of Control for Cricket in India v
Cricket Association of Bihar1, this Court accepted the reforms in the
administration of cricket proposed by a Committee chaired by Justice
RM Lodha2. The review petition has been dismissed. On 2 January 2017,
this Court directed that a Committee of Administrators3 shall supervise
the administration of BCCI through its Chief Executive Officer. The
CoA was constituted on 17 January 2017. On 24 July 2017, this Court
directed that except for certain outstanding issues which were identified,
the recommendations of the Lodha Committee must be implemented:
"...(c) All concerned shall implement the recommendations of the
Justice Lodha Committee Report as far as practicable, barring
the issues which have been raised pertaining to
membership, number of members of the selection
committee, concept of associate membership, etc. The
purpose is to implement the report as far as practicable
and, thereafter, it shall be debated as to how the scheme of things
can be considered so that the cricket, the 'gentleman's game',
remains nearly perfect. Be it noted, the issue with regard to
disqualification or qualification of the representative is kept open."
 (Emphasis supplied)
1(2015) 3 SCC 251
2Abbreviated in this judgment as the Lodha Committee
3Abbreviated as CoA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
On 23 August 2017, the CoA was entrusted to prepare a draft
constitution in accordance with the judgment rendered on 18 July 2016
and the order dated 24 July 2017. Modalities were evolved by this Court
to consider the concerns of stakeholders by ensuring that the draft
constitution is duly circulated between all the counsel so that their
suggestions could be evaluated. This Court observed :
"we...direct the Committee of Administrators to prepare a
draft Constitution in terms of the main judgment as well as
the order dated 24th July, 2017. A copy of the draft Constitution
shall be handed over to Advocate-on-Record assisting the learned
counsel for the respondents. A copy of the draft Constitution be
also handed over to Mr. B.K. Prasad, learned counsel assisting
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General . Suggestions, if any,
to the draft Constitution be handed over to the learned counsel
assisting the learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Parag P. Tripathi so
that they can prepare a chart and will be in a position to give their
comments.
On the next date of hearing, besides the three aspects that
have been mentioned in the order dated 24th July, 2017,
any aspect which is sought to be raised by the Association
can be raised. But, it is to be impressed that the suggestion
must have acceptable sanctity. It should not be raised for
the sake of raising an objection." (Emphasis supplied)
2. On 21 September 2017, the CoA made a grievance that quite
apart from the fact that no suggestions were received, a concerted
effort was made by the office bearers of BCCI not to abide by the
judgment of the Court. Hence, on 21 September 2017, the Court while
recording the above submission extended another opportunity to receive
suggestions to the draft constitution :
"In the course of hearing, it is submitted by Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,
learned senior counsel appearing for the Committee of
Administrators that though a draft constitution was handed
over to the office bearers of B.C.C.I. and also to all
concerned, no suggestion has been received and a concerted
attempt has been adopted by the office bearers of B.C.C.I.
not to follow the judgment of this Court.
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
We may hasten to add that in our previous order dated 24th July,
2017, we have clearly indicated that three to four aspects
shall be debated. The suggestions in that regard can be given to
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Committee of Administrators, Needless to emphasize, Mr. C.K.
Khanna, Mr. Anirudh Chaudhry and Mr. Amitabh Choudhary,
Office Bearers of B.C.C.I. shall fully cooperate while giving the
suggestions. If the aforesaid three Office Bearers do not give
suggestions in accordance with the judgment of this Court which
has accepted the Justice Lodha Committee report, they shall face
serious consequences. The draft constitution shall include the
suggestions given by Justice Lodha Committee in its
entirety so that a holistic document comes before this Court.
After the document is placed before the Court, the claims of
Railways. Universities and Services and the other cricket
Associations, who are of the view that concept of 'one State one
vote' should not be applicable keeping in view their contribution to
the game of cricket, shall be considered. The suggestions, shall
be given within three weeks hence. For the purpose of drafting
out the constitution after taking note of the suggestions, to make it
final for the purpose of approval by this Court, the Office Bearers
of B.C.C.I shall not hold a General Body Meeting."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. On 27 October 2017, the CoA filed a draft constitution for
BCCI and its office bearers. Suggestions to the draft received from
state cricket associations and other parties were filed by the CoA
together with comments on the proposed suggestions, in a status report
dated 12 January 2018. On 1 May 2018, this Court noted that
suggestions to the draft constitution have been filed and would be
finalized by the Court. In the interest of fairness, it was however
observed that any further suggestions that a state cricket association
may have, could still be forwarded to the amicus. Accordingly, the
following directions were issued :
"A draft Constitution meant for the B.C.C.I. and its Office Bearers
has been filed on 27.10.2017. Suggestions to the same by various
State Cricket Associations have also been filed and the same have
been attached to the draft Constitution. The draft Constitution
shall be finalized by this Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
537
In the meantime, if any State Cricket Association intends
to file any further suggestion, they may submit the same in
bullet points to Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus
Curiae, who shall compile the suggestions and file it before
this Court within three days.
It is hereby made clear that the draft Constitution approved
by this Court shall not be debated upon and shall stand
finalized, only subject to the determination made in the
application(s) for recall of the primary judgment, pending
adjudication before this Court.
Let the matter be listed on 11.5.2018." (Emphasis supplied)
4. Following this comprehensive exercise which has been taken
by the CoA, the amicus and by all the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of diverse parties, including state cricket associations and those
who have served as office bearers of BCCI, the suggestions made by
all stakeholders have been compiled and presented to the Court. The
amicus has, in the course of compiling the suggestions, informed the
Court that as many as nineteen state cricket associations, the
Association of Indian Universities, the Cricket Club of India and
National Cricket Club, the Administrator appointed by the Delhi High
Court for DDCA and two officer bearers of BCCI (Mr Amitabh
Choudhary, Secretary and Mr Anirudh Chaudhary, Treasurer) have
submitted suggestions. We have heard all the stakeholders who wished
to be heard at length so as to enable the Court to form a holistic
perspective. The purpose of this exercise is to finalise the text of BCCI's
Constitution which incorporates the principles which find acceptance by
the Lodha Committee (and affirmed by this Court), while at the same
time ensuring a measure of practicality in implementation. The
acrimony which witnessed the proceedings earlier has given way to a
robust cooperation by the counsel appearing for all the stakeholders.
Before we deal with the suggestions, we must commend the approach
adopted by all the stakeholders before this Court. All the learned
Counsel who advanced submissions made a fair attempt to resolve the
outstanding issue of finalizing the draft constitution, with a sense of
objectivity. It was after hearing extensive arguments of all the learned
Counsel that on 5 July 2018, this Court reserved orders on the question
of finalizing the draft constitution having due regard to the contents of
the draft placed on the record and the suggestions of the learned amicus
Curiae and counsel.
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
5. Broadly speaking, the suggestions which have been received
to the draft constitution have been divided by Mr Gopal Subramanium,
learned amicus Curiae under the following heads :
a) Issues relating to membership and Associate Membership;
a) Number of members in Selection Committee and related
 matters;
b) Cooling off period;
c) Disqualifications;
d) Constitution of the Apex council;
e) Conditions imposed on State Associations;
f) Power/Duties of Office Bearers and Professional Management
 (CEO);
g) No interference at all in the functioning of BCCI; and
h) Binding value of Frequently Asked Questions issued by the
 Hon'ble Justice Lodha committee.
We propose to examine the issues which have been raised during
the course of hearing.
A. Issues relating to membership and Associate
 Membership: One State - One Vote
6. Rule (3)(a)(i) of the draft constitution contemplates that
membership of BCCI shall consist of (i) Full members and; (ii) Associate
members. The text of the draft constitution provides thus :
"(ii) Full Members
A. Each State shall be represented by a state cricket association
duly recognized by the BCCI and such associations shall be
Full Members. No State shall have more than one Full Member
at any given point of time.
B. The associations who are the controlling bodies for cricket in
the following States shall be the Full Members of the BCCI:
1. Andhra Pradesh
2. Arunachal Pradesh
3. Assam
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
4.
Bihar
5.
Chhattisgarh
6.
Delhi
7.
Goa
8.
Gujarat
9.
Haryana
10.
Himachal Pradesh
11.
Jammu and Kashmir
12.
Jharkhand
13.
Karnataka
14.
Kerala
15.
Madhya Pradesh
16.
Maharashtra
17.
Manipur
18.
Meghalaya
19.
Mizoram
20.
Nagaland
21.
Orissa
22.
Punjab
23.
Rajasthan
24.
Sikkim
25.
Tamil Nadu
26.
Telangana
27.
Tripura
28.
Uttar Pradesh
29.
Uttarakhand
30.
West Bengal
C. In States with multiple Existing Members, the full membership
shall rotate annually among such Existing Members such that
only one of them will exercise the rights and privileges of a
Full Member at any given point of time. The rotation shall be
as per the policy framed by the BCCI.
D. Where disputes are pending regarding the duly recognized
association to represent a particular State, the State shall be
represented by the recognized association, subject to any order
of the Court or resolution of the BCCI as the case may be.
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
(iii) Associate Members
A. Any Existing Member (including an Existing Member who is
not exercising the rights and priileges of a Full Member in
terms of Rule 3(1)(ii)C above) shall be an Associate Member
of the BCCI.
B. The BCCI may induct any other entity as an Associate
Member, subject to all the conditions and disqualifications laid
down in Rule 33(b)(b) below."
7. In Chapter 1 of its report titled "The Structure and
Constitution", the Lodha Committee dealt with membership of BCCI
and anomalies perceived in its composition. The Committee took note of
the fact that several states such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand,
the six north-eastern states (except Tripura) and Union Territories (except
Delhi) lack representation on the Board. On the other hand, the Committee
perceived an anomaly in that states like Maharashtra and Gujarat hold
three full memberships each. The Committee noted that the Services
Sports Control Board ("Services"), Railway Sports Promotion Board
("Railways") and Association of Indian Universities ("Universities")
do not as such represent any specified territory but are actively involved
in the game of cricket whereas some members like the National Cricket
Club at Kolkata and the Cricket Club of India at Mumbai do not represent
any territory. The Lodha Committee relied upon territoriality as a
determining factor for the grant of full membership. Railways, Services
and Universities not being tied to the territory of one state were denied
full membership. Though Gujarat fielded three cricket teams (Gujarat,
Saurashtra and Baroda) and so did Maharashtra (Mumbai, Maharashtra
and Vidarbha) both states would each have one Full membership. The
Lodha Committee recommended that the status of associate member
should be granted to those members who do not represent any territory.
8. In the principal judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016, the
one state - one vote norm was accepted. While doing so this Court
observed thus :
"62. That brings us to the question whether "One State One
vote" recommended by the Committee suffers from any
legal or other infirmity sufficient for this Court to reject
the same. The recommendation made by the Committee has a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
541
two-fold impact on the current state of affairs in BCCI. The first
is the reduction of some of the Associations and Clubs from the
full membership of BCCI to the status of Associate Members.
The other aspect of the recommendation is the reduction of the
full membership of at least four existing full members to the status
of associate members from the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat.
63...We see no merit in that contention nor do we see any reason
to disagree with the recommendation made by the committee,
who has upon a thorough consideration of all facts and
circumstances relevant to the working of the BCCI, recommended
the conversion of the clubs and associations without a territory
from full members to associate members. This is a measure
which has been recommended with a view to structurally
streamlining the BCCI to make it more responsive and
accountable having regard to the aspiration of different
regions for an equal opportunity to participate in the growth
and promotion of the game in the country.
65...a balance has to be struck with historical reality and the need
for adopting a pragmatic, uniform and principled approach aimed
at reforming and rationalizing BCCI's structural edifice. The
recommendation made by the Committee to the extent it provides
for one vote for each state is unexceptionable nor should there be
any compromise with what is proposed as a reformative measure.
Even so the question is whether BCCI, in the peculiar situation
prevalent in these two states, is in a position to recognize one of
the three Associations representing different territories in those
two States as the one that would represent the entire State.....That
being so, the only reasonable and rational answer to the
problem within the broad principle of One State One Vote
would be to allow the full membership of BCCI to rotate
among the three clubs on an annual basis."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. The one state - one vote norm and the principle of territoriality
have given rise to specific objections. Historically in the State of
Maharashtra, there have been three associations, each of which fields
its own cricket team in the Ranji Trophy : (i) Maharashtra; (ii) Mumbai
and; (iii) Vidarbha. Similarly, in the State of Gujarat, there have been
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
three associations representing: (i) Gujarat; (ii) Baroda; and (iii)
Saurashtra. In both the states, these associations have made a signal
contribution to the cricketing history of the nation. Besides, fielding teams
for the Ranji Trophy, these associations have produced players of national
and international repute. The amicus has responded to the plea before
this Court for allowing full membership to the three associations each in
the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat. The amicus submits that the
order of this Court mandates that there should be an annual rotation of
the constituent members of Maharashtra and Gujarat so that every year,
one of the three constituent members would be capable of voting and
participating in the general body. Moreover, it has been submitted that
for the elections to the Apex Council which take place once every three
years, the first member association which has already cast a vote should
not be able to cast a vote at the end of three years but must pass it on to
the next association in turn. In this manner, it has been suggested that all
the three constituent associates of the two states will have due opportunity
to not only participate in the affairs of the general body but would have
an opportunity to vote at the end of three years. In the view of the
amicus, a rotational policy is eminently practicable for Maharashtra and
Gujarat and the mandate of the principal judgment brings about parity
and fairness so that no constituent member is excluded from the general
body for a period exceeding one year. However, it has not been explained
how, once full membership has been granted, what legal principle can be
applied for adopting a rotational policy. The amicus while recognising
the circumstances of history pertaining to Maharashtra and Gujarat
submits that the recommendations of the Lodha Committee which have
been accepted in the principal judgment seek to bring about uniformity in
the structure of management and a certain amount of domestic equality.
However, he suggests that the releasing of grants and such other
requirements as may be necessary for constituents must be suitably
addressed by the CoA and by the regularly elected Apex Council.
10. We are of the view that it is necessary to restore full
membership in the constitution of the BCCI to the three associations
each in the State of Maharashtra (Maharashtra, Mumbai and Vidarbha)
and in Gujarat (Gujarat, Baroda and Saurashtra). During the course of
the hearing, written submissions have been placed on the record in which
the contributions of Baroda, Saurashtra, Mumbai and Vidarbha have
been set out. We need to extract them here:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
543
"BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION
Cricket was introduced to Vadodara city by the Maharaja of
Baroda, Sayajirao Gaekwad in 1934 and Moti Bagh Stadium was
the home of Baroda cricket. Since then Baroda has emerged 5
times as Ranji Trophy Champrions in the year 1942-43, 1946-47,
1949-50, 1957-58 & 2000-01.
Baroda had produced many famous cricketers of international
level in the past such as Vijay Hazare, Gogumal Kishenchand,
Jayasinghrao Ghorpade, Deepak Shodhan and in the present
generation Datta Gaekwad, Chandu Borde, Kiran More,
Anshuman Gaekwad ... Jitendra Patel. Amongst the later crop,
Irfan Pathan, Yusuf Pathan, Zaheer Khan and Munaf Patel have
played for this association."
"MUMBAI CRICKET ASSOCIATION
In the year 1928, 'the Bombay Presidency (Proper) Cricket
Association' was formed having geographical limits extending from
Sind in the north to Karnataka (excluding Mysore State) in the
South. In the year 1935 it was re-christened as 'Bombay Cricket
Association' as the newly formed Gujarat and Maharashtra
Cricket Association receded from the territorial limits of the
Bombay Presidency (Proper) Cricket Association. The present
day Mumbai Cricket Association or MCA is the governing body
for cricket in Mumbai and its surrounding regions like Thane and
Navi Mumbai. The Mumbai cricket team is the team for The
Mumbai Cricket Association in the Ranji Trophy. The team has
won over 41 titles, the most recent being in 2015-16. It has also
come runner-up in the final of the Ranji Trophy a total of 4 times.
The association owns the Wankhede Stadium.
Famous cricketers produced by MCA, amongst others, include
Abey Kuruvilla, Ajinkya Rahane, Ajit Wadekar, Ashok Mankad,
Chandu Borde, Dilip Sardesai, Dilip Vengsarkar, Eknath Solkar,
Farokh Engineer, Jatin Paranjpe, Polly Umrigar, Ravi Shastri, Rohit
Sharma, Rustomji Jamshedji, Rusi Modi, Sachin Tendulkar,
Sandeep Patil, Sanjay Manjrekar, Sunil Gavaskar, Vijay Manjrekar,
Vijay Merchant, Vinod Kambli, Wasim Jaffer etc."
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D.Y.