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

- **Citation:** [2015] 1 S.C.R. 165
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-01-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014
- **Bench:** T.S. Thakur, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/board-of-control-for-cricket-in-india-v-cricket-association-of-bihar-ors-30415
- **Pages:** 112

## Headnote

A
s.
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 12 - BCCI - Whether
'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and if not whether C
amenable to writ jurisdiction u!Article 226 -
Held: BCCI
discharge several important public functions and is thus is
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court u/Article 226
even when it is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12.
D
Sporting frauds:
Match fixing and betting - Whether Meiyappan and Raj
Kundra were 'team officials' of their respective IPL teams -
Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals and whether
a/legations of betting levelled against them stood proved -
E
Held: The Probe Committee, recorded a specific finding that
Meiyappan was working/associated with the IPL as team
official of the CSK -
That Meiyappan was a team official of
CSK owned by India Cements Ltd. was not disputed by either
India Cements Ltd. or any other party - The Probe Committee
F
on the basis of the further investigation and enquiry further
held that Raj Kundra. was a 'team official', a 'player s_μpport
personnel' and 'participant' within the meaning of the _re1evant
rules and that he had indulged in betting - Given the nature
of the proceedings entrusted to the Probe Committee and the
G
standard of proof applicable to the same, then~ is no reason
to disagree with the conclusion of the Probe Committee - The
material assembled in the course of the investigation by the
Probe Committee provided a reasonably safe basis for
165
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 1 S.C.R.
A holding that the accusations made against Gurunath
Meiyappan and Raj Kundra stood established on a
preponderance of probabilities - The finding was by no means
without basis or perverse to call for interference with the same
- The misconduct against these two individuals as also their
B respective franchisees/teams/owners is actionable under the
Rules - Three-member Committee constituted to determine
the quantum of punishment - IPL Operational Rules - Code
of Conduct for Players and the Team Official - Anti Corruption
Code - Betting.
c
Match fixing and betting - Whether allegation of cover
up against Srinivasan stood proved - Held: The Probe
Committee recorded a specific finding that the a/legations of
Match fixing, spot-fixing or betting were not proved against
Srinivasan in the course of the enquiry - Srinivasan had even
D stepped aside while the probe was on to avoid any accusation
being made against him - Similarly, the allegation that an
effort was made to suppress facts before the Probe Committee
or that Gurunath was shown only as a cricket e11thusiast
whereas he was a team official, .may, at best, raise a suspicion
E against Srinivasan but suspicion cannot be taken as proof to
hold him guilty of the alleged cover up - Therefore, it cannot
be said that the charge of attempted cover up leveled against
Srinivasan stood proved.
F
Match fixing and betting - Whether a/legations levelled
against Sundar Raman, Chief Operating Officer IPL, stood
proved - Held: The report submitted by the investigating team
and the Probe Committee did not indict Sundar Raman in
clear words - The observ<Itions made regarding his role and
G conduct simply gave rise to a serious suspicion about his
involvement in the betting affairs of the team owners/officials
apart from suggesting that having received information about
betting activities in connection with IPL matches, he remained
totally inert in the matter instead of taking suitable action
warranted under the circumstances -
Therefore, the.
H
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
167
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
allegations made against him cannot go un-probed, even if A
it means a further investigation by the investigating team
provided to the Probe Committee or by any other means -
Three-member Committee constituted to also examine the
role played by Sundar Raman.
IPL Regulations: r.6.2.4 -
Amendment to r.6.2.4
B
. permitting Administrators of BCCI to acquire or hold
commercial interests in BCCJ like IPL, c

## Text

_Characters 0–39,934 of 217,133. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39934 for what follows._

[2015] 1 S.C.R. 165
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA
v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014
JANUARY 22, 2015
[T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM
KALIFULLA, JJ.]
A
s.
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 12 - BCCI - Whether
'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and if not whether C
amenable to writ jurisdiction u!Article 226 -
Held: BCCI
discharge several important public functions and is thus is
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court u/Article 226
even when it is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12.
D
Sporting frauds:
Match fixing and betting - Whether Meiyappan and Raj
Kundra were 'team officials' of their respective IPL teams -
Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals and whether
a/legations of betting levelled against them stood proved -
E
Held: The Probe Committee, recorded a specific finding that
Meiyappan was working/associated with the IPL as team
official of the CSK -
That Meiyappan was a team official of
CSK owned by India Cements Ltd. was not disputed by either
India Cements Ltd. or any other party - The Probe Committee
F
on the basis of the further investigation and enquiry further
held that Raj Kundra. was a 'team official', a 'player s_μpport
personnel' and 'participant' within the meaning of the _re1evant
rules and that he had indulged in betting - Given the nature
of the proceedings entrusted to the Probe Committee and the
G
standard of proof applicable to the same, then~ is no reason
to disagree with the conclusion of the Probe Committee - The
material assembled in the course of the investigation by the
Probe Committee provided a reasonably safe basis for
165
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 1 S.C.R.
A holding that the accusations made against Gurunath
Meiyappan and Raj Kundra stood established on a
preponderance of probabilities - The finding was by no means
without basis or perverse to call for interference with the same
- The misconduct against these two individuals as also their
B respective franchisees/teams/owners is actionable under the
Rules - Three-member Committee constituted to determine
the quantum of punishment - IPL Operational Rules - Code
of Conduct for Players and the Team Official - Anti Corruption
Code - Betting.
c
Match fixing and betting - Whether allegation of cover
up against Srinivasan stood proved - Held: The Probe
Committee recorded a specific finding that the a/legations of
Match fixing, spot-fixing or betting were not proved against
Srinivasan in the course of the enquiry - Srinivasan had even
D stepped aside while the probe was on to avoid any accusation
being made against him - Similarly, the allegation that an
effort was made to suppress facts before the Probe Committee
or that Gurunath was shown only as a cricket e11thusiast
whereas he was a team official, .may, at best, raise a suspicion
E against Srinivasan but suspicion cannot be taken as proof to
hold him guilty of the alleged cover up - Therefore, it cannot
be said that the charge of attempted cover up leveled against
Srinivasan stood proved.
F
Match fixing and betting - Whether a/legations levelled
against Sundar Raman, Chief Operating Officer IPL, stood
proved - Held: The report submitted by the investigating team
and the Probe Committee did not indict Sundar Raman in
clear words - The observ<Itions made regarding his role and
G conduct simply gave rise to a serious suspicion about his
involvement in the betting affairs of the team owners/officials
apart from suggesting that having received information about
betting activities in connection with IPL matches, he remained
totally inert in the matter instead of taking suitable action
warranted under the circumstances -
Therefore, the.
H
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
167
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
allegations made against him cannot go un-probed, even if A
it means a further investigation by the investigating team
provided to the Probe Committee or by any other means -
Three-member Committee constituted to also examine the
role played by Sundar Raman.
IPL Regulations: r.6.2.4 -
Amendment to r.6.2.4
B
. permitting Administrators of BCCI to acquire or hold
commercial interests in BCCJ like IPL, champions league and
T-20 - Propriety of - Held: r. 6. 2. 4 to the extent, it permits,
protects and even perpetuates situations where the
Administrators can have commercial interests in breach or C
conflict with the duty they owe to the BCCI or to the people at
large must be held to be against public policy - Amendment
to r. 6. 2. 4 clearly negates the declarations and resolves of the
BCCI by permitting situations in which conflict of interest would
grossly erode the confidence of the people in the authenticity,
D
purity and integrity of the game - 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 Jaw.
E
Administrative law:
Findings of Domestic Tribunal - Scope of interference
..:.. Held: Supreme Court is not sitting in appeal against the
findings of a Domestic Tribunal set up to enquire into the
allegations of misconduct levelled against a team official of
F
a participating team and is, therefore, not to re-appraise the
material that was assembled by the Probe Committee and G
relied upon to support its finding.
Public policy - Concept of - Held: Any rule, contract or
arrangement that actually defeats or tends to defeat the high
ideals of fairness and objectivity in the discharge of public
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 1 S.C.R.
A functions no matter by a private non-gov.emmental body will
be opposed to public policy - r.6.2.4 of the IPL Regulations
to the extent it permits, protects and even perpetuate situations
where the Administrators can have commercial interests in
breach or conflict with the duty they owe to the BCCI or to the
B people at large must be held to be against public policy -
Sporting frauds - Contract Act, 1872 - s.23.
Doctrines/Principles:
Principle of natural justice - Held: Violation of a-rule of
C natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as
discrimination - Where discrimination is the result of State
action, it is a violation of Article 14 - Therefore, a violation of
a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of
Article 14.
D
Administrative authority - Principle of natural justice -
Applicability of - Held: Even if the duties and functions which
BCCI discharges are administrative and not quasi-judicial, the
principles of natural justice will find their application with the
E same rigor as may be applicable to quasi-judicial functions
- Sporting frauds.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: Re: Question No.1: Whether the respondentF BCCI is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and if it is
not, whether it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
1.1. Article 12 of the Constitution of India gives an
G inclusive definition to the expression 'State', and says
that for purposes of Part Ill of the Constitution the
expression 'State' includes the Parliament of India, the
Government and the Legislat!Jre of each of the States and
Local or other authorities within the territory of India or
H
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
169
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
under the control of the Government of India. The
A
question whether or not BCCI is 'State' within the
meaning of Article 12 may not make any material
difference to the case at hand in view of the admi~ted
position that respondent-BCCI does discharge several
important public functions which make it amenable to the
B
writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. [Para 20] [194-H; 195-A, C-D]
1.2. BCCI regulates and controls the game of cricket
to the exclusion of all others. It enjoys the power of C
choosing the members of the national team and the
umpires. It spends crores of rupees on building and
maintaining infrastructure like stadia, running of cricket
academies and Supporting State Associations. It sells
broadcast and telecast rights and collects admission fee
to venues where the matches are played. All these
D
activities are undertaken with the tacit concurrence of the
State Government and the Government of India. 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. Any organization or entity that has
E
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 undertEking any private
activity. The functions of the Board are clearly public
functions, which, till such time the State intervenes to
F
takeover the same, remain in the nature of public
functions, no matter discharged by a society registered
under the Registration of Societies Act. [Para 30) [204-F,
G; 205-D-E]
Sukhdev and Ors. etc. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh
G
Raghuvanshi and Anr. etc. (1975) 1 SCC 421: 1975 (3)
SCR 619; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India and Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489: 1979 (3)
SCR 1014; Ajay Hasia and ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 1 S.C.R.
A and ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722: 1981 (2) SCR 79; Pradeep
Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)
5 SCC 111: 2002 @} --5CR 100; Sabhajit Tewary v. Union
of India and Ors. (1975)1 SCC 485; Board of Control for
Cricket in tfidia v. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC 741:
B 2005 (1) SCR 173; Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of
~ · India (2005) 4 sec 649: 2005 (1) SCR 913 - relied on.
Marsh v. Alabama (3) 326 U.S. 501: 19 L. ed. 265; Evans
v. Newton 382 US 296 15 L.Ed.·2nd 373, Ch 614 = 1963 1
C All. E.R. 590; New York v. United States 326 US 572 -
referred to.
Re: Question No.2: Whether Gurunath Meiyappan
and Raj Kundra were 'team officials' of their
respective IPL teams • Chennai Super Kings (CSK)
D
and Rajasthan Royals? If so, whether allegations of
betting levelled against them stood proved?
2.1. The Probe Committee recorded a specific finding
that Gurunath Meiyappan was working/associated with
E the IPL as team official of the CSK. The Committee further
held that so long as Meiyappan was a team official, the
consequences of his acts of betting would flow even
when he was not the owner, or the perceived owner of
the CSK. That Meiyappan was a team official of CSK
F owned by India Cements Ltd. was not disputed by either
India Cements Ltd. or any other party. The Probe
Committee further held that Meiyappan was indulging in
betting. Given the nature of the proceedings entrusted to
the Probe Committee and the standard of proof
applicable to the same, there is no reason to disagree
G with its conclusion that Meiyappan was indeed indulging
in betting. The material assembled in the course of the
investigation by the Probe Committee provided a
reasonably safe basis for holding that the accusations
made against Meiyappan stood established on a
H preponderance of probabilities. This Court is not sitting
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
171
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
in appeal against the findings of a Domestic Tribunal set A
up to enquire into the allegations of misconduct levelled
against a team official of· a participating team and is,
therefore, not re-appraising the material relied upon by the
Probe Committee to support its finding. The finding is by
no means without basis or perverse to call for B
interference with the same. [Paras 31 to 33) [207-C, E-H;
208-A]
2.2. The Probe Committee on the basis of the further
investigation and enquiry came to the conclusion that Raj
C
Kundra was a 'team official', a 'player support personnel'
and 'participant' within the meaning of the relevant rules
and that he had indulged in betting. The IPL Operational
Rules provide for 'disciplinary and complaint procedure'
to be followed in regard to the complaints and/or 0
breaches of the regulations and/or charges of
misconduct levelled against anyone connected with the
IPL. This procedure includes establishment of a
'Disciplinary Procedure Commission' to hear and decide
such matters. Instead of constituting a 'Disciplinary
Procedure Commission' ·comprising three members of E
IPL Code of Behaviour Committee, the BCCI had
appointed a three-member Committee comprising two
former Judges of the High Court with Mr. Jagdale as the
third member. The departure came ostensibly because of
a public hue and cry over betting by those owning the
F
participating teams. The situation was in that view
extraordinary which called for an extraordinary approach.
The Probe Committee was reduced to two members after
Mr. Jagdale decided to resign, but the Committee was
asked by the Board to continue and complete the probe G
even with its reduced strength. This was a conscious
departure by the BCCI from the procedure laid down by
the IPL Operational Rules which was faulted by the High
Court. When the matter travelled to this Court, the
seriousness of the allegations and the ramifications
H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 1 S.C.R.
A involved led to the setting up of a High Powered Probe
Committee in place of the Disciplinary Procedure
Commission as contemplated by the IPL Operational
Rules and Regulations. The whole purpose behind
setting up of the Probe Committee was to make the entire
B process of investigation and enquiry into the allegations
credible. The Probe Committee headed by a former Chief
Justice of the High Court was never intended to conduct
a preliminary investigation. It was on the contrary
understood by all concerned to be a substitute for the
c Disciplinary Procedure Commission under the Rules
empowered to examine the allegations and record
findings. The second aspect is that the Probe Committee
set up by the BCCI had expressed its inability to do
anything in the matter on account of absence of any
0 material to support the allegations appearing in the press.
The BCCI had, for all intents and purposes, treated that
finding to be conclusive giving a quietus to the
controversy. The direction for appointment of a Probe
Committee ~as issued in exercise of appellate powers
E vested in this Court. The directions came in a public
interest petition with a view to finding out whether there
was any truth in the allegations that owners of IPL teams
and franchisees were in a big way indulging in sporting
frauds th~reby discrediting the game and cheating the
public of their confidence in its purity. That being the
F object, it was futile to set up the "disciplinary procedure"
under the Rules against the ~xercise of such plenary
powers as are vested in this Court. [Paras 36, 40, 41) (209H; 210-A; 212-G; 213-D-E, F-H; 214-A-B; 215-8-D]
G
2.3. Like the Disciplinary Procedure Commission
even the Probe Committee set up by this Court was
bound to observe the principles of natural justice in the
matter of conducting the probe entrusted to it. That is
because of the consequences that would flow from any
H finding which the Probe Committee would record against
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
173
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
those accused of wrong doings. Admittedly, Raj Kundra
A
was heard by the Committee before concluding that he
had indulged in betting. Absence of any notice to anyone
else was of little consequence so long as the person
concerned was duly notified and afforded a fair
opportunity. To that extent, therefore, the grievance
B
sought to be projected by the Jaipur IPL Private Ltd.
regarding absence of any notice is rejected. [Para 42]
[215-E-F; 216-C-D]
T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No.363 S.C. Belgaum and
C
Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1144: 1964 SCR 1 - held inapplicable
Ambalal Sarabhai and Ors. v. Phiroz H. Anita AIR 1939
Born 35 - referred to.
/Lennox Arthur Patrick O'Reilly and Ors. v. Cyril Cuthbert o
Gittens AIR 1949 PC 313; Maclean v. Workers Union LR
1929 1 CHO 602, 623 LAPO Reilly v. C. C. Gittens AIR 1949
PC 313 - referred to.
Re: Question No.3: If question No.2 is answered in
the affirmative, what consequential action in the
nature of punishment is permissible under the
relevant Rules and Regulations, and against whom?
3. It is common ground that there are different sets of
rules and regulations applicable to the fact situation at
hand. Even the franchise agreement between the BCCI
and the franchisees contain provisions that provide for
action in situations like the one at hand. [Para 47] [219-DE]
The different sets of rules and regulations are:
(i)
Permissible action in terms of the IPL
Operational Rules:
E
F
G
A careful reading of the IPL Operational Rules
H
17 4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 1 S.C.R. .
A showed that every franchisee, player, team official, and/
or match official is subject to the said rules. In terms of
Rule 2.1.4, each person subject to these rules is
restrained from acting or omitting to act in any way that
would or might reasonably be anticipated to have an
s adverse affect on the match and/or reputation of such
person, any team, any player, any team official, the BCCI,
the league and/or the game. Each franchisee is in terms
of Rule 4.1.1 under an obligation to ensure that each of
its team official complies with the regulations, and in
c particular Article 2 of the BCCI and Anti-Corruption Code.
The rule, however, provides that all those persons who
are accredited for the league by BCCI either centrally or
.locally, shall be deemed to be team officials for the
purposes of those regulations. In terms of Regulation 6.4,
0 BCCI can impose any one of the sanctions enumerated
thereunder which includes suspension of the player or
other person subject to the Operational Rules from
playing or involving in matches for a specified period and
suspension of the team or franchisee from the league.
Payment of money from a person subject to these
E Operational Rules either to BCCI or to any other person
subject to those rules is also provided as one of the
permissible sanctions. Once Meiyappan and Raj Kundra
are accepted as team officials, their misconduct ·which
has adversely affected the image of the BCCI and the
F league as also the game and brought each one of them
to disrepute can result in imposition of one or more of the
sanctions stipulated under Rule 6.4. Those sanctions are
not limited to Meiyappan and Raj Kundra alone but may
extend to suspension of the team or the franchisee from
G the league also. [Paras 48 to 50] [224-D-E, F-G, H; 225-AC, D-E]
H
(ii)
Permissible action under the Anti Corruption
Code for participants:
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
175
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
The BCCI claims to have adopted the Anti Corruption
Code for achieving, what it describes as certain
"fundamental sporting imperatives". BCCI is, by the
standards set by it, duty bound to ensure that the game
of cricket is played in accordance with those sporting
imp~ratives not only because the game itself is described
as a gentleman's game but also because adherence to
sporting imperatives alone can maintain the public
confidence in its purity. Article 2.2.1 treats betting as one
of the actionable wrongs under the Code. In terms of
Article 2.5.2 the participant who authorises, causes,
knowingly assists, encourages, aids, abets, covers up or
A
B
c
is otherwise complicit in any act or omission of the types
described in Articles 2.1. to 2.4 committed by his/her
coach, trainer, manager, agent, family member, guest or
other associate shall be treated as having committed
such an act or omission himself and shall be liable
accordingly under the Anti-Corruption Code. Meiyappan
having been found to be a team official of CSK is a
"player support personnel" hence a participant within the
meaning of the Anti-Corruption Code. Therefore, even
E
under the Anti-Corruption Code for participants any act
like betting can attract sanctions not only for the person
who indulges in such conduct but also for all those who
authorise, cause, knowingly assist, encourage, aid, abet,
cover up or are otherwise complicit in any act of omission
D
F
or commission relating to such activity. [paras 51, 55, 56)
(225-F, G-H; 236-A-C, D, G-H]
(iii)
Permissible action under the "Code of
Conduct for Players and the Team Official":
Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials also
prescribes punishment/sanctions for players or team
officials found guilty of different levels of offences
stipulated in the said Code. The team official who is found
guilty of betting is certainly acting against the spirit of the
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 1 S.C.R.
A game and bringing disrepute to it. Article 7 of the Code
empowers the match Referee or the Commissioner to
impose suitable sanction upon the person concerned
depending upon the level of the offence which is
committed. The punishment can range between warning
B to suspension for a lifetime depending upon the nature
and the gravity of the offence committed. In terms of
Clause 11.3 (c) of the Franchise Agreement, if the
franchisee/any franchisee group company and/or any
owner acts in a manner that has a material adverse effect
c upon the reputation or standing of the league, BCCl-IPL,
BCCI, the franchisee, the t;;am or any other team and/or
the game of cricket, the BCCl-IPL is empowered to
terminate the agreement. The expression 'owner' shall
mean any person who is the ultimate Controller of the
0 Franchisee. [Paras 57, 58, 60] [237-B, F-G, 238-E-F]
Re: Question no.4. Whether allegations of cover up,
levelled against N. Srinivasan stand proved. If so. to
what effect?
E
4. The Probe Committee recorded a specific finding
that the allegations of Match fixing, spot-fixing or betting
were not proved against Srinivasan in the course of the
enquiry. It was argued that the facts clearly established
that Srinivasan had attempted to cover up the betting
F activities of his son-in-law who was a team official of CSK.
The appointment of a Probe Committee comprising
former Judges of the High Court cannot be seen as an
attempt to cover up nor can Srinivasan be accused of
withholding any incriminating material from the Probe
G Committee especially when there was nothing to show
that Srinivasan was indeed in possession of any
incriminating material that was withheld by him.
Srinivasan had in fact stepped aside while the probe was
on to avoid any accusation being made against him.
H Similarly, the allegation that an effort was made to
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
177
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
suppress facts before the Mudgal Committee or that
A
Gurunath was shown only as a cricket enthusiast
whereas he was a team official, may, at best, raise a
suspicion against Srinivasan but suspicion can hardly be
taken as proof to hold him guilty of the alleged cover up.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the charge of attempted
B ·
cover up leveled against Mr. Srinivasan stood proved.
[Paras 63, 65] (239-B-C, D; 241-C, E]
Question 5. Whether Regulation 6.2.4 to the extent it
permits administrators to have commercial interest in
C
the IPL, Champions League and Twenty-20 events is
legally bad?
5.1. Rule 6.2.4 before amendment was in the
following words: "No Administrators shall have, directly
or indirectly, any commercial interest in the matches or D
events conducted by the Board." The impugned
amendment added the following words at the end of the
above Rule: "excluding events like IPL or Champions
League Twenty 20." Rule 6.2.4 after amendment, permits
creation of commercial interests in the events organized
E
by BCCI by its Administrators. This enabling provision
disregards the potential conflict of interest which will
arise between an administrator's duty as a functionary of
the BCCI on the one hand and his interest as the holder
of any such commercial interest on the other. Three real
life situations that have arisen in the past, qua India
Cements owned by Srinivasan's family and captained by
him, ·simply demonstrate how such conflicts have arisen
between the duty which Srinivasan owes to BCCI and
through the BCCI to the cricketing world at large and his
commercial if not personal interest in the events which
G
BCCI organizes. The first instance arose when .BCCI
awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.10.40 crores to
CSK on account of the cancellation of the Champions
League Tournament 2008. It is not in dispute that
F
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 1 S.C.R.
A Srinivasan was one of those who contributed to the
taking of the decision to award that amount towards
compensation to his own team. A similar award of a sum
of rupees 13.10 crores came in the year 2009 which too
fell foul of his duty on the one hand and interest on the
B other. Return of the amount because of a public outcry
may no doubt mean that Srinivasan tried to come clean
on the subject even when his company may have
suffered a loss, but it may as well mean that the return of
the amount came only under public pressure and in
c recognition of the fact that the amount was not actually
due and payable and yet was paid to the detriment of
BCCI who is a trustee of general public interest in the
sport of cricket and everything that goes with it. The third
instance where Srinivasan's commercial interest came in
. D
E
direct conflict with his duty as President of BCCI is when
allegations of betting were leveled against his son-in-law
Meiyappan. Amendment to Rule 6.2.4 is the true villain in
the situation at hand. It is the amendment which attempts
to validate what was on the date of the award of the
franchise invalid as Rule 6.2.4 did not as on that date
permit an administrator to have any commercial interest
in any event organized by BCCI. While it may not be
feasible at this stage to interfere with the award of the
franchise to ICL especially when hundreds of crores
have been invested by the franchisee, the amendment
F which .perpetuates such a conflict cannot be
countenanced and shall have to be struck down. The
validity of the Rule 6.2.4 as amended can be examined
also from the stand point of its being opposed to "Public
Policy". The expression has been used in Section 23 of
G the Contract Act, 1872 and in Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 and other statutes but has not
been given any precise definition primarily because the
expression represents a dynamic concept and is,
therefore, incapable of any strait-jacket definition,
H
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
179
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
meaning or explanation. [Paras 70, 71, 81 to 85] [243-DA
F; 250-G-H; 251-B-D; 252-C, D-E, F; 253-0-E; F-H]
A.K. Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1969) 2
SCC 262: 1970 (1) SCR 457;
Union of India v. Tulsiram
Patel etc. (1985) 3 SCC 398: 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 131;
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited ii. Brojo
B
Nath Ganguly and Anr. etc. (1986) 3 SCC 156: 1986
(2) SCR 278; Murlidhar Aggarwal and Anr. v. State of UP. &
Ors. (1974) 2 SCC 472: 1975 (1) SCR 575; Oil & Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705:
2003 (3) SCR 691 ; Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v.
C
Western GECO International Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 263 - relied
on.
5.2. Any d~viation, abrogation, frustration or negation
of the salutary principles of justice, fairness, good
0
conscience, equity and objectivity will be opposed to
public policy. It follows that any rule, contract or
arrangemerit that actually defeats or tends to defeat the
high ideals of fairness and objectivity in the discharge of
public functions no matter by a private non-governmental
body will be opposed to public polic~·. Applied to the case
E
at hand Rule 6.2.4 to the extent, it permits, protect!i and
even perpetuates situations Vlhere the Administrators
can have commercial interests in breach or conflict with
F
the duty they owe to the BCCT or to the people at large
must be held to be ~gainst public policy, hence, illegal.
That is particularly so when BCCI has m the Anti
Corruption Code adopted by it recognized public
confidence in the authenticity and integrity of the'
sporting contest as a fundamental imp4l!rative. It has
accepted and rtghtly so, that all cricket matches must be
G
contested on a level playing field with the outcome to be
determined solely by the respective merits of the
competing teams. [para 90] [260-A-E]
.5.3. There is no manner of doubt whatsoever ~at the
H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 1 S.C.R.
A game enjoys its popularity and raises passions only
because of what it stands for and because the people
who watch the sport believe that it is being played in the
true spirit of the game without letting any corrupting
influence come anywhere near the principles and
B fundamental imperatives considered sacrosanct and
inviolable. The expression 'Administrator' appearing in
Rule 6.2.4 has been defined to mean and !nclude present
and past Presidents, Honorary Secretaries, Honorary
Treasures, Honorary Joint Secretaries of the BCCI.
c Presidents and Secretaries present or past of members
affiliated to BCCI are also treated as administrator along
with representative of a member or an associate member
or affiliate member of the Board. That apart, any person
connected with any of the committees appointed by the
Board are also treated as administrator; none of whom
D could have any' commercial interest in any BCCI event
but for the impugned amendment to Rule 6.2.4. It is
common ground that the owner of a team buys the
franchise in an open auction. India Cements Ltd. owner
of CSK has also bought the Chennai franchise in an
E open auction held by BCCI. This sale and purchase of
the franchises is a purely commercial/business venture
for India Cements Ltd. involving investment of hundred~
of crores. Accordingly Amendment to Rule 6.2.4
permitting Administrators of BCCI to acquire or hold
F commercial interests in BCCI like IPL, champions league
and T-20 is held to be bad. [paras 92, 98] [263-H; 264-AB; 267-D-F, G-H; 269-A-B]
K. Murugon v. Fencing Association of India, Jabalpur and
G ors. (1991) 2 SCC 412: 1991 (1) SCR 658; N. Kannadasan
v. Ajoy Khose and Ors. (2009) 7 SCC 1: 2009 (7) SCR 668
; Centre for PIL and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. (2011) 4
sec 1: 2011 (4) SCR 445 - relied on.
Question 6 Whether allegations levelled against Mr.
H
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
181
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
Sundar Raman, Chief Operating Officer IPL, stand
A
proved? If so, to what effect?
6. Sundar Raman in his capacity as the Chief
Operating Officer was charged with the duty of
overseeing the tournament and all other live events ·
including the opening ceremony and also the general
8
operations,
sponsorships
activities,
television
production, estimations of costs, negotiation of contracts,
administration duties, travel and transport and other
related functions. The allegation levelled against him was
that he was in constant touch with Vindoo Dara Singh
C
evidenced by nearly 350 calls made thereto between
them during the IPL. In its final report the Probe
Committee, however, recorded a finding that Sundar
Raman had known a bookie and had contacted him at 8
different times in the IP.L. The report submitted by the
D
investigating team and the Probe Committee did not
indict Sundar Raman in clear words. The observations
made regarding his role and conduct simply gave rise to
a serious suspicion about his involvement in the betting
affairs of the team owners/officials apart from suggesting
that having received information about betting activities
in connection with IPL matches, he remained totally inert
in the matter instead of taking suitable action warranted
under the circumstances. Sundar Raman was the spirit
behind the entire exercise and cannot be said to be
unconcerned with what goes on in the course of the
tournament especially if it has the potential of bringing
disrepute to the game/BCCI. Therefore, the allegations
made against him cannot go un-probed, even if it means
E
F
a further investigation by the investigating team. Truth
G
about the allegations, made against Sunda:- Raman, must
be brought to light, for it is only then that all suspicions
about the fraudulent activities and practices floating in
the media against the BCCI and its administrators in
several proceedings before different courts can be given
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
,{,2015] 1 S.C.R.
A a quietus. [paras 99, 101, 104, 105] [269-C-D, H, 270-A;
B
271-C-D, G-H; 272-A-B]
Question 7 What orders and directions need be
passed in the light of the discussions and answers
to questions 1 to 5 above?
7.1. The question is whether this court should impose
a suitable punishment or leave it to the BCCI to do the
needful. The trajectory of the present litigation, and the
important issues it has raised as also the profile of the
C individuals who have been indicted, would demand tliat
the award of punishment for misconduct is left to an
independent committee to exercise that power for and on
the behalf of BCCI. The other aspect, is the need for a
probe into activities of Sundar Raman. The proposed
0 Committee would examine the role played by Sundar
Raman with the help of the investigating team
constituted. [paras 107, 108] [272-F, G-H; 273-B-H]
7.2. The three-member Committee is also requested
to examine and make suitable recommendations to the
E BCCI for such reforms in its practices and procedures
and such amendments in the Memorandum of
Association, Rules and Regulations. [Para 110] [275-E-F]
Case Law Reference :
F
1975 (3) SCR 619
relied on
Para 21
1979 (3) SCR 1014
reli~d on
Para 24
1981 (2) SCR 79
relied on
Para 25
2002 (3) SCR 100
relied on
Para 26
G
(1975) 1 sec 485
relied on
Para 26
2005 (1) SCR 173
relied on
Para 27
2005 (1) SCR 913
relied on
Para 28
1964 SCR 1
held inapplicable Para 38
H
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
183
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR
AIR 1939 Bombay 35
referred to
Paras 38, 45
AIR 1949 PC 313
referred to
Paras 38, 44
1970 (1) SCR 457
relied on
Para 74
1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 131 relied on
Para 76
1986 (2) SCR 278
relied on
Para 77
1975 (1) SCR 575
relied on
Para 85
2003 (3) SCR 691
relied on
Para 88
(2014) 9 sec 263
relied on
Para 89
1991 (1) SCR 658
relied on
Para 93
2009 (7) SCR 668
relied on
Para 94
2011 (4 ) SCR 445
relied on
Para 95
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 Public Interest Litigation
A
B
·C
D
No. 55 of 2013.
E
WITH
C. A. Nos. 4236 of 2014 & 1155 of 2015
C. A. Sundaram, Nalini Chidambaram, Siddhartha Luthra,
F
Raju Ramachandran, Kapil Sibal, Mahesh Jethmalani, Ashok
Desai, Shekhar Naphade, V. Giri, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Radha
Rangaswamy, P. R. Raman, Rohini Musa, Akhila Kaushik, S.
P. Arthi, Rahul Mascarenhans, Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Raman
Kumar, Rupendra Singh, Rajat Sehgal, Chandrashekhar
G
Verma, S. Swadeep Hora, Gagan Gupta, Vikas Mehta,
Puneeth K. G., Rajat Sehgal, lshwar Nankani, Jagdish
Choudhary, Rashmi Singh, Pooja Dhar, Amal Chitale, Salim
lnamdar, Pragya Baghel, K. Hari Shankar, Aditya Verma, Vikas
Singh Jangra, S. Lakshmi, Aarti Goyal, Tamali Wad, Deep Roy,
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 1 S.C.R.
A Monish Panda, Anish Dayal, Anthony Handique, Siddarath
Vaid, lshwar Mohanty, Vaibhav Sharma, Shubhangi Tuli,
Deeptakriti Verma, Neha Sharma, Viraj Gandhi, Rashmi Singh,
Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukla, Ankit Kr. Lal, M. Yogesh
Kanna, Santha Kumaran, S. Janani, Hari Shankar K., Rahul
B Pratap, Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Gaurav Sharma, Aprajita Singh,
Rahul Gupta, Rahul Mehta, Priyanka Rai, Chirag M. Shroff, P.
B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Udayaditya Banerjee (for Temple Law
Firm) for the appearing parties.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Allegations of sporting frauds like match fixing and
betting have for the past few years cast a cloud over the
0
working of the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI). Cricket
being more than just a sport for millions in this part of the world,
accusations of malpractices and conflict of interests against
those who not only hold positions of influence in the BCCI but
also own franchises and teams competing in the IPL format
E have left many a cricketing enthusiasts and followers of the
game worried and deeply suspicious about what goes on in
the name of the game. There is no denying the fact that lower
the threshold of tolerance for any wrong doing higher is the
expectation of the people, from the system. And cricket being
not only a passion but a great unifying force in this country, a
F zero tolerance approach towards any wrong doing alone can
satisfy the cry for cleansing.
3. These appeals arise out of two successive writ petitions
filed in public interest by the appellant-Cricket Association of
G Bihar before the High Court of Bombay for several reliefs
including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing BCCI to
recall its order constituting a probe panel comprising two retired
Judges of Madras High Court to enquire into the allegations of
betting and spot fixing in the Indian Premier League (IPL) made
H among others against one Gurunath Meiyappan. The High Court
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v.
185
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
·has by its order dated 30th July, 2013 passed in PIL No.55 of
A
2013 granted that relief but declined a possible reconstitution
of the panel. Aggrieved, BCCI h'as assailed the order passed
by the High Court in Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014. In the
connected Civil Appeal No.4236 of 2014, Cricket Association
of Bihar has prayed for further and consequential orders which
B
according to the appellant could and indeed ought to have
been passed by the High Court, inter alia, for removal of
respondent No.2 from the post of President of BCCI and
cancellation of the franchise favouring Chennai Super Kings
and Rajasthan Royals for the IPL matches to be conducted in c
future. In Civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.34228 of 2014
the association challenges the validity of Regulation 6.2.4 of the
BCCI Regulations for Players, Team Officials, Managers,
Umpires & Administrators (for short 'BCCI Regulations') and
the order passed by the High Court dismissing PIL No.107 of D
2013.
4. Cricket Association of Bihar is a society registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 just as respondent
- BCCI is a Society registered under the provisions of Tamil
Nadu Registration of Societies Act 1975. Mr. N.Srinivisan -
E
respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeal No.4236 of 2014 is the
President of the Board besides being the Vice-Chairman and
Managing Director of respondent No.3-lndia Cements Limited,
a public Limited Company.
F
5. In a meeting held on 13th September, 2007, the working
committee of the respondent-Board appears to have taken a
decision to launch what came to be known as Indian Premier
League (IPL) to be run by a Committee constituted by general
body of the BCCI to be called IPL Governing Council. In
G
December 2007 the IPL Governing Council invited tenders for
grant of IPL franchises on open competitive bidding basis, in
which only corporate bodies were allowed to participate. India
Cements Ltd. was one of those who participated in the auction
for the Chennai franchise and emerged successful in the same.
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 1 S.C.R.
A The team it assembled was christened Chennai Super Kings.
Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited partly owned and promoted
by respondent No.5 similarly emerged successful for the Jaipur
Franchise and assembled a team called Rajasthan Royals.
Franchise Agreements were, pursuant to the auction, signed
B by BCCI with the franchisees concerned.
6. On 27th September, 2008 Mr. N.Srinivasan was elected
as the Secretary of the BCCI in a General Body Meeting.