# S. SREESANTH v. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 4 S.C.R. 765
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-03-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2424 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-sreesanth-v-the-board-of-control-for-cricket-in-india-ors-33532
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

Cricket: Spot fixing - Ban for life - Plea of violation of rules
of natural justice - In the instant case, appellant was registered
player and participated in IPL match - Allegation against the
appellant was that in the match played on 09.05.2013 between
Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab at Mohali, in exchange of
Rs.10 lakh, he agreed to concede 14 or more runs in the second
over of bowling spell - One-man Commission which was
constituted by BCCI on direction of Supreme Court submitted a
Preliminary report - The report relied on the video clipping and
recordings of telephone conversation and opined that there was
sufficient evidence against the appellant to prove him guilty of
various Articles of Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI - The report also
stated that the Commissioner had no access to the appellant as he
was in police custody - After the appellant was released from
police custody, he appeared before the Commissioner and gave his
statement - Thereafter the Commissioner submitted Supplementary
report accusing the appellant of offences under the
Anti-Corruption Code - Disciplinary Committee heard the
appellant and communicated its decision of banning him from
playing or representing for life - Appellant raised plea that
principles of natural justice was violated as the transcripts of
telephone conversation relied by the Disciplinary Committee of the
BCCI was not provided to him and further he was not confronted
with transcript of the telephone conversation relied on by it -
Held: The transcripts of telephone conversations were received by
the appellant from the Police much before issuance of the
show-cause notice by the Disciplinary Committee - The submission
of Preliminary Report without taking statement of the appellant
was in the circumstances that the appellant was in the Police
custody and under the order of Supreme Court, the Commissioner
 [2019] 4 S.C.R. 765
765
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
had to submit report within 15 days - When the appellant was
released from the custody, his statement was duly taken and after
considering his statement further Supplementary Report was
submitted - In the show-cause notice with respect to the material
relied by the Disciplinary Committee, the appellant was given full
opportunity to have his say - Thus, there was no violation of
principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Committee -
Doctrines/Principles - Natural Justice.
Cricket: BCCI - Anti-Corruption Code - Allegation of
betting, bringing disrepute to the game and failure to disclose to
the ACU BCCI full details of any approaches and invitations to
engage in conduct that amounted to breach of the Code - Whether
Disciplinary Authority was right in holding that there were
sufficient materials to hold the appellant guilty of offences of
corruption under various articles of Anti-corruption Code - Held:
There being specific allegations made against the appellant in the
show-cause notice, it was incumbent on the appellant to have
explained the evidence and circumstances which were sought to be
relied against the appellant - In the disciplinary proceedings a
delinquent has to explain circumstances and evidence relied against
him - It is true that the charges have to be proved by the BCCI for
taking any action under the Anti-Corruption Code - The
Disciplinary Committee of the BCCI had jurisdiction to form its own
opinion after considering the evidence on record including the
telephonic conversation and other evidence on the record - The
conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Committee on the basis of the
material cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity which
may warrant judicial review by the constitutional courts - Judicial
Review.
Cricket: BCCI - Anti-Corruption Code - Article 3.1 - Whether
the Disciplinary Committee has rightly placed burden of proof on
the appellant whereas according to Anti-Corruption Code under
Article 3.1, the burden of proof was on the designated
Anti-Corrupti

## Text

_Characters 0–39,979 of 114,278. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39979 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
S. SREESANTH
v.
THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2424 of 2019)
MARCH 15, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Cricket: Spot fixing - Ban for life - Plea of violation of rules
of natural justice - In the instant case, appellant was registered
player and participated in IPL match - Allegation against the
appellant was that in the match played on 09.05.2013 between
Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab at Mohali, in exchange of
Rs.10 lakh, he agreed to concede 14 or more runs in the second
over of bowling spell - One-man Commission which was
constituted by BCCI on direction of Supreme Court submitted a
Preliminary report - The report relied on the video clipping and
recordings of telephone conversation and opined that there was
sufficient evidence against the appellant to prove him guilty of
various Articles of Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI - The report also
stated that the Commissioner had no access to the appellant as he
was in police custody - After the appellant was released from
police custody, he appeared before the Commissioner and gave his
statement - Thereafter the Commissioner submitted Supplementary
report accusing the appellant of offences under the
Anti-Corruption Code - Disciplinary Committee heard the
appellant and communicated its decision of banning him from
playing or representing for life - Appellant raised plea that
principles of natural justice was violated as the transcripts of
telephone conversation relied by the Disciplinary Committee of the
BCCI was not provided to him and further he was not confronted
with transcript of the telephone conversation relied on by it -
Held: The transcripts of telephone conversations were received by
the appellant from the Police much before issuance of the
show-cause notice by the Disciplinary Committee - The submission
of Preliminary Report without taking statement of the appellant
was in the circumstances that the appellant was in the Police
custody and under the order of Supreme Court, the Commissioner
 [2019] 4 S.C.R. 765
765
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
had to submit report within 15 days - When the appellant was
released from the custody, his statement was duly taken and after
considering his statement further Supplementary Report was
submitted - In the show-cause notice with respect to the material
relied by the Disciplinary Committee, the appellant was given full
opportunity to have his say - Thus, there was no violation of
principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Committee -
Doctrines/Principles - Natural Justice.
Cricket: BCCI - Anti-Corruption Code - Allegation of
betting, bringing disrepute to the game and failure to disclose to
the ACU BCCI full details of any approaches and invitations to
engage in conduct that amounted to breach of the Code - Whether
Disciplinary Authority was right in holding that there were
sufficient materials to hold the appellant guilty of offences of
corruption under various articles of Anti-corruption Code - Held:
There being specific allegations made against the appellant in the
show-cause notice, it was incumbent on the appellant to have
explained the evidence and circumstances which were sought to be
relied against the appellant - In the disciplinary proceedings a
delinquent has to explain circumstances and evidence relied against
him - It is true that the charges have to be proved by the BCCI for
taking any action under the Anti-Corruption Code - The
Disciplinary Committee of the BCCI had jurisdiction to form its own
opinion after considering the evidence on record including the
telephonic conversation and other evidence on the record - The
conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Committee on the basis of the
material cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity which
may warrant judicial review by the constitutional courts - Judicial
Review.
Cricket: BCCI - Anti-Corruption Code - Article 3.1 - Whether
the Disciplinary Committee has rightly placed burden of proof on
the appellant whereas according to Anti-Corruption Code under
Article 3.1, the burden of proof was on the designated
Anti-Corruption Official and whether by wrongly placing the
burden of proof the Disciplinary Committee has erred in recording
its conclusion - Held: Article 3.1 deals with burden of proof and
standard of proof - The initial burden of proof is on the Designated
Anti-Corruption Official i.e. Disciplinary Committee which has to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
767
form its opinion about the commission of designated offences by
the delinquent - Before taking the decision when show-cause
notice is served on the appellant making allegations and referring
to relevant materials in support of the said allegation, it was
incumbent on the appellant to have satisfactorily explained each
and every circumstances or evidence referred to and relied - When
the explanation submitted by the appellant was not found
satisfactory, he having not been able to satisfactorily explain the
allegations which were noticed from the telephone conversation
between the appellant and the bookie, it cannot be said that the
burden of proof was wrongly placed on the appellant - Initial
burden as referred to in Article 3.1 stood discharged when the
allegation referring to materials and evidence are communicated to
delinquent - Standard of proof as referred to in Article 3.1 is that
the BCCI Disciplinary Committee is to be comfortably satisfied,
bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that is being made,
that the alleged offence has been committed - Of course, on mere
doubt the Disciplinary Committee cannot hold offences proved, there
has to be a positive evidence and finding regarding the proof of
offences - The burden of proof was not wrongly placed on the
appellant.
Cricket: BCCI - Anti-Corruption Code - Burden of proof,
standard - The standard of proof in a disciplinary inquiry and in a
trial of a criminal case are entirely different - In a criminal case it
is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt whereas
in disciplinary inquiry under Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI the
preponderance of probability is to serve the purpose.
Cricket: BCCI - Anti-Corruption Code - Criminal case -
Discharge of appellant from the criminal case - Whether the
discharge order has any effect on the disciplinary proceeding of
BCCI under Anti-Corruption Code - Held: There is a vast
distinction in the scope of inquiry between a criminal trial on one
hand and disciplinary inquiry against a public servant or
disciplinary inquiry under Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI on other
hand - The question before the Sessions Court was whether the
appellant was guilty of offences under the criminal statutes -
Sessions Court had not to deal with the question whether the
appellant was guilty of violating Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI -
S. SREESANTH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
The clauses which the appellant breached under the
Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI were entirely different from the
offences under which the appellant had been charged before the
Sessions Court - The ingredients required to establish a breach of
the BCCI Code are also distinct and separate from the ingredients
required to prove offences under the penal statutes - The
conclusions and observations as recorded in the disciplinary
proceedings under Anti-Corruption Code were entirely different from
proof of criminal charges which are on higher yardstick to prove -
Thus, the discharge order had no effect on the disciplinary
proceeding of BCCI under Anti-Corruption Code.
Cricket: BCCI - Anti-Corruption Code - Imposition of
maximum sanction of life time ban by Disciplinary Committee on
charges under Article 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 of the Anti-Corruption Code -
Propriety of - Held: Sanction under Article 6 of Anti-Corruption
Code of BCCI is nothing but punishment on commission of the
offences and akin to sentencing in criminal jurisprudence - The
principles of sentencing as applicable in offence under the Indian
Penal Code may not be strictly applicable to one of punishment/
sanction under the Anti-Corruption Code but principles of sentencing
as applicable in the criminal jurisprudence may be relevant for
imposing sanction under the Anti-Corruption Code - In cases where
offences under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 are proved, the
Disciplinary Committee is not obliged to award a life time ban in all
cases where such offences are proved - When range of ineligibility
which is minimum five years, maximum life time ban is provided for,
the discretion to which, either minimum or maximum or in between
has to be exercised on relevant facts and circumstances - No doubt,
Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI envisages zero tolerance to
corruption - However, zero tolerance approach cannot dilute
consideration of relevant factors while imposing sanction under
Article 6 - Disciplinary Committee's order did not advert to the
aggravating and mitigating factors as enumerated in Articles 6.1.1
and 6.1.2 - Without considering the relevant provisions of
Anti-Corruption Code, the Disciplinary Committee imposed a life
time ban on the appellant which sanction was not in accordance
with the Anti-Corruption Code itself - Sentence/Sentencing.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
769
Disciplinary Committee: Constitution of - Propriety challenged - Whether the constitution of Disciplinary Committee was
vitiated by including Shri Srinivasan as President who had already
stepped down on 02.06.2013 resulting in vitiation of entire
proceedings - Held: There was no legal impediment in Shri
Srinivasan participating in the Disciplinary Committee in the
meeting of 13.09.2013 as President - The appellant having not taken
this ground even in the grounds of appeal is not allowed to
question the constitution of Disciplinary Committee at this stage.
Administrative Law: Disciplinary proceedings - Judicial
review, scope of interference - Constitutional court in exercise of
jurisdiction of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings conducted
under the Code of Conduct framed by the BCCI to interfere only
when conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee are perverse or
based on no evidence - On appreciation of evidence, it is not open
for the High Court or Supreme Court to substitute its own opinion
based on the appreciation of material on record on the charges
proved - Cricket.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The present is not a case where telephone conversations have been referred without they not being available
to the appellant. The transcripts of telephone conversations were
received by the appellant from the Police much before issuance
of the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary committee.
The appellant in his reply has not made any complaint of nonreceipt of transcripts. When the appellant was released from
the custody, his statement was taken and after considering his
statement further Supplementary Report was submitted. There
was no violation of principles of natural justice by the disciplinary
committee of the BCCI. [Paras 23, 25] [788-E-F; 789-B-C]
2.1 The disciplinary inquiry conducted by disciplinary
committee of BCCI is akin to disciplinary inquiry conducted
against a public servant. There being specific allegations made
against the appellant in the show-cause notice, it was incumbent
on the appellant to have explained the evidence and
circumstances which were sought to be relied against the
appellant. In the disciplinary proceedings a delinquent has to
S. SREESANTH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
explain circumstances and evidence relied against him. It is true
that the charges have to be proved by the BCCI for taking any
action under the Anti-Corruption Code. The disciplinary
committee of the BCCI had jurisdiction to form its own opinion
after considering the evidence on record including the telephone
conversation and other evidence on the record. The conclusion
drawn by the disciplinary committee on the basis of the material
cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity which may warrant
judicial review by the constitutional courts. Constitutional court
in exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review of disciplinary
proceedings conducted under the Code of Conduct framed by
the BCCI will interfere only when conclusions of the disciplinary
committee are perverse or based on no evidence. It is not open
for the High Court or this Court to substitute its own opinion
based on the appreciation of material on record on the charges
proved. For the decision of the disciplinary committee holding
charges under Articles 2.1.1., 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.2.3 and Article
2.4.1. and 2.4.2 proved, there are no grounds for this Court to
take a different view. [Paras 30, 34, 35][790-F-G; [794-G-H;
795-A-B, D-E]
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975)
2 SCC 557 : [1976] 1 SCR 521; Union of India and
Others v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610; Central
Industrial Security Force and Others v. Abrar Ali
(2017) 4 SCC 507 - relied on.
3. Article 3.1 deals with burden of proof and standard of
proof. The initial burden of proof shall be on the Designated AntiCorruption Official i.e. disciplinary committee which has to form
its opinion about the commission of Designated Offences by the
delinquent. Before taking the decision when show-cause notice
is served on the appellant making allegations and referring to
relevant materials in support of the said allegation, it was
incumbent on the appellant to have satisfactorily explained each
and every circumstances or evidence referred to and relied. When
the explanation submitted by the appellant was not found
satisfactory, he having not been able to satisfactorily explain the
allegations which were noticed from the telephone conversation
between the appellant and the bookie, it cannot be said that the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
771
burden of proof has wrongly been placed on the appellant. Initial
burden as referred to in Article 3.1 shall stand discharged when
the allegation referring to materials and evidence are
communicated to delinquent. The burden of proof was not
wrongly placed on the appellant. [Para 37] [796-B-F]
4.1 There is a vast distinction in the scope of inquiry
between a criminal trial on one hand and disciplinary inquiry
against a public servant or disciplinary inquiry under AntiCorruption Code of BCCI on other hand. The ingredients
required to establish a breach of the BCCI Code are also distinct
and separate from the ingredients required to prove offences
under the penal statutes in question. The standard of proof in a
disciplinary inquiry and in a trial of a criminal case are entirely
different. In a criminal case it is essential to prove a charge beyond
all reasonable doubt wherein in departmental inquiry
preponderance of probability is to serve the purpose.[Paras 38,
39] [796-G; 797-B-C]
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh,
(2006) 4 SCC 265 : [2006] 3 SCR 872 - relied on.
4.2 The conclusions and observations as recorded in the
disciplinary proceedings under Anti-Corruption Code are entirely
different from proof of criminal charges which are on higher
yardstick to prove. It is a well settled principle that criminal
charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is not
applicable in disciplinary proceedings initiated by the disciplinary
committee of the BCCI. [Para 40] [797-F-G]
5. There was no legal impediment in Shri Srinivasan
participating in the disciplinary committee in the meeting of
13.09.2013 as President. The appellant having not taken this
ground even in the grounds of this appeal, he cannot be allowed
to question the constitution of disciplinary committee at this stage.
[Para 41] [798-D-E]
6.1 The Anti-Corruption Code uses the word "offences"
and offences are enumerated under the Code for which sanction
is provided in Article 6. Sanction under Article 6 is nothing but
punishment on commission of the offences and akin to sentencing
S. SREESANTH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
in the criminal jurisprudence. The principles of sentencing as
applicable in offence under Indian Penal Code may not be strictly
applicable to one of punishment/sanction under the
Anti-Corruption Code but principles of sentencing as applicable
in the criminal jurisprudence may be relevant for imposing
sanction in Anti-Corruption Code. In the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, there are no structured sentencing guidelines. In
March, 2003, the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice
System (the Malimath Committee), a body established by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, issued a report that emphasized the
need to introduce sentencing guidelines in order to minimise
uncertainty in awarding sentences. The Indian Penal Code
prescribe offences and punishments for the same. For many
offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some
offences the minimum punishment is also prescribed. Various
jurists and writers have tried to enumerate circumstances which
may mitigate the gravity of offences. [Para 43] [801-F-H;
802-A-B]
Jagmohan Singh v. The State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC
20 : [1973] 2 SCR 541; Bachan Singh v. State of
Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 - followed.
6.2 A zero tolerance towards any wrong-doing alone can
satisfy the cry of clinching the Cricket. Anti-Corruption Code of
BCCI clearly envisaged zero tolerance to corruption. What was
meant by the zero tolerance is that any offence committed within
the meaning of Anti-Corruption Code cannot be ignored or to be
leniently dealt with. Zero tolerance emphasis taking cognizance
of such offences and awarding suitable punishment. However,
zero tolerance approach cannot dilute consideration of relevant
factors while imposing sanction under Article 6. [Para 52]
[807-B-D]
6.3 Article 6 itself enumerates aggravating and mitigating
circumstances. Article 6 contains a heading 'Sanctions'. Para 6.1
provides that in order to determine the appropriate sanction that
is to be imposed in each case, the disciplinary committee must
first determine the relative seriousness of the offence, including
identifying all relevant factors that it deems to. Further, Article
6.1.2 enumerates the mitigating circumstances. The AntiCorruption Code which has articles containing mitigating and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
aggravating circumstances are necessarily to be taken into
consideration while imposing punishment/sanction under
Article 6. [Paras 54, 55, 56] [808-C-D; 809-C; 810-C]
Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another v. State of Gujarat
and Others (2006) 2 SCC 359 : [2006] 1 SCR 477 ;
Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC 545
: [2013] 4 SCR 104 ; Mukesh and Another v. State
(NCT of Delhi) and Others (2017) 6 SCC 1 : [2017] 6
SCR 1 - relied on.
7.1 In the instant case, life ban was imposed on the appellant
on offences under Article 2.1.1., 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.14 (corruption),
for which as per second column a minimum of five years and
maximum of life time ineligibility is provided for. Life ban cannot
be imposed in all cases where such offences are proved. When
range of ineligibility which is minimum five years, maximum life
ban is provided for, the discretion to choose either minimum or
maximum or in between has to be exercised on relevant factors
and circumstances. [Para 57] [811-A-B]
7.2 The disciplinary committee's order dated 13.09.2013
did not advert to the aggravating and mitigating factors as
enumerated in Article 6.1.1. and 6.1.2. Without considering the
relevant provisions of Anti-Corruption Code the disciplinary
committee has imposed life time ban which sanction cannot be
held to be in accordance with the Anti-Corruption Code itself.
The disciplinary committee of the BCCI is empowered to impose
appropriate sanction in terms of Article 6 of the Code upon
consideration of relevant factors, without considering the relevant
factors imposition of maximum punishment cannot be sustained.
Apart from these factors, the subsequent conduct of the appellant
also shows obedience to BCCI. Initially when the life time ban
was imposed on 13.09.2013, appellant has not even challenged
the said order, it was only after the appellant was discharged from
the criminal case on 25.07.2015 and when the appellant got
opportunity to play and participate in the Scotland Premier League
on e-mail was sent through Kerala Cricket Association on
11.01.2017. It was only thereafter when No Objection Certificate
was not granted to the appellant and the BCCI refused to modify
S. SREESANTH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
the ban, writ petition was filed in the Kerala High Court. In so far
as charges proved under Article 2.2.3, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, the
maximum sanction is of 5 years, the award of punishment of five
years shall also satisfy the requirement under Code, which need
no separate consideration for the purposes of this case. As per
Article 6.3.2 all sanction imposed on appellant shall run
concurrently. As on date the period of 5 years sanction has come
to an end. The order dated 13.09.2013 of the disciplinary
committee only to the extent of imposing sanction of life time
ban is set aside. The disciplinary committee of the BCCI may
reconsider the quantum of punishment/sanction which may be
imposed on the appellant as per Article 6 of the Anti-Corruption
Code. The appellant may be given one opportunity to have his
say on the question of quantum of punishment/sanction. The
disciplinary committee may take decision on the quantum of
punishment/sanction at an early date. Appellant shall await the
decision of the disciplinary committee and future course of action
shall be in accordance with the decision of the disciplinary
committee so taken. [Paras 58, 59, 61] [811-C-H; 812-A;
813-G-H; 814-A-B]
Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket
Association of Bihar and Others (2015) 3 SCC 251 :
[2015] 1 SCR 165 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 1 SCR 165
 relied on
Para 3
[1976] 1 SCR 521
 relied on
Para 30
(2015) 2 SCC 610
 relied on
Para 32
(2017) 4 SCC 507
 relied on
Para 33
[2006] 3 SCR 872
 relied on
Para 39
[1973] 2 SCR 541
 followed
Para 43
(1980) 2 SCC 684
 followed
Para 44
[2006] 1 SCR 477
 relied on
Para 47
[2013] 4 SCR 104
 relied on
Para 48
[2017] 6 SCR 1
 relied on
Para 49
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
775
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2424
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2017 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1909 of 2017
Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv., Krishnamohan K. Menon,
Vikramaditya Singh, Zafar Khurshid, Ms. Dania Nayyar, Ms. Parul
Sachdeva, Ms. Alisha Pande, Advs. for the Appellant.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Gauri Rasgotra,
Vikash Kumar Jha, Ms. Gathi Hari Prakash, Ms. Nikitha Shenoy, Rishabh
Kapur (for M/s Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas), Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh,
Ms. Alka Aggarwal, Raj Bahadur, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. The sports occupy a prominent place
in life of a man/woman and also in the life of a nation. It not only gives
physical or moral strength to a personality but spread the message of
goodwill and friendship. In the 21st Century the countries have come
closer and nearer to each other and sports have become a medium of
bonds. United Nations Educational and Cultural Organisation adopted in
the General Conference at the twentieth session, Paris, 21st November,
1978 an International Charter of physical education and sports. The
Charter contains following:
".......
Convinced that to preserve and develop the physical. intellectual
and moral powers of the human being improves the quality of life
at the national and the international levels,
Believing that physical education and sport should make a more
effective contribution to the inculcation of fundamental human
values underlying the full development of peoples,
Stressing accordingly that physical education and sport should seek
to promote closer communion between peoples and between
individuals. together with disinterested emulation, solidarity and
fraternity, mutual respect and understanding, and full respect for
the integrity and dignity of human beings, ........."
S. SREESANTH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
2. Article 10 of the Charter recognizes the importance of National
institutions in sports. Article 10 states:
"Article 10. National institutions play a major role in
physical education and sport
10.1. It is essential that public authorities at all levels and specialized
non-governmental bodies encourage those physical education and
sport activities whose educational value is most evident. Their
action shall consist in enforcing legislation and regulations, providing
material assistance and adopting all other measures of
encouragement. stimulation and control. The public authorities will
also ensure that such fiscal measures are adopted as may
encourage these activities.
10.2. It is incumbent on all institutions responsible for physical
education .and sport to promote a consistent, overall and
decentralized plan of action in the framework of lifelong education
so as to allow for continuity and co-ordination between compulsory
physical activities and those practised freely and spontaneously."
3. Cricket, it is said, is a synonym for gentlemanliness which means
discipline, fair play, modest and high standard of morality. The ever
increasing interest in the game of Cricket in our country has raised issues
of its regulation, control and management. In our country the Board of
Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), a registered Society under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860, exercises sufficient control on all aspects
of game of Cricket and has framed various Code of Conduct for all who
are associated with it. Highlighting the importance of BCCI, Justice T.S.
Thakur, as he then was, in Board of Control for Cricket in India vs.
Cricket Association of Bihar and others, (2015) 3 SCC 251, stated
following:
"103. BCCI is a very important institution that discharges
important public functions. Demands of institutional integrity are,
therefore, heavy and need to be met suitably in larger public
interest. Individuals are birds of passage while institutions are
forever. The expectations of the millions of cricket lovers in
particular and public at large in general, have lowered considerably
the threshold of tolerance for any mischief, wrongdoing or corrupt
practices which ought to be weeded out of the system."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
777
4. The present is an appeal filed by an acclaimed cricketer of
India against whom proceedings were drawn by BCCI and a life ban
was imposed on the appellant by the BCCI which was unsuccessfully
challenged before the Kerala High Court and aggrieved by the Division
Bench judgment of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. Background facts giving rise to this appeal need to be noted
now:
The appellant, a registered player with Kerala Cricket Association
affiliated to BCCI participated in an IPL match held at Mohali, Punjab
on 09.05.2013. The appellant represented Rajasthan Royals against Kings
XI Punjab. The case Crime No.20 of 2013 dated 09.05.2013 was
registered in the Special Cell of Delhi Police on a suo moto information
provided by an Inspector of Special Cell. Information was received by
the Police regarding involvement of various persons in some sort of
fixing in the on going Cricket matches of IPL with active participation of
un-identified conduits based in Delhi. The appellant was arrested by
Delhi Police on allegation of spot fixing on 16.05.2013. By order dated
17.05.2013 BCCI suspended the appellant. In the Writ Petition (C)
No.318 of 2013 Sulaxsha Awasthi vs. Union of India, this Court directed
the oneman Commission constituted by the BCCI to submit its report to
the Board within a period of 15 days indicated about the irregularities
that is noticed during the IPL matches. Oneman inquiry Commission
submitted Preliminary Report dated 05.06.2013 on the basis of video
clipping and recordings of telephone conversation opining that there are
sufficient evidence against the appellant to prove him guilty of various
articles of Anti-corruption Code. Preliminary Report further stated that
the Commissioner had no access to the appellant who was in police
custody. It opined that there are sufficient evidence available to proceed
with the disciplinary proceedings against the suspended players. The
appellant after being released from the custody appeared before oneman
Commission and gave his statement dated 24.06.2013. He denied any
spot fixing done by his friend Jiju, if at all, and he reiterated that he did
not under perform the game. In his statement he further stated that he
confessed certain things before the Delhi Police which was due to
continuous torture and pressure. After receiving the statement dated
24.06.2013, Supplementary Report dated 08.07.2013 was submitted by
oneman Commission. The Supplementary Report relied on the audio
conversations between Sreesanth and Jiju Janardhan recorded on
S. SREESANTH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN
INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
06.05.2013 at 1740 hrs. and 2032 hrs. and on the basis of audio tapes
and transcripts oneman Commission concluded that the appellant was
part of the spot fixing and earlier findings given by the Preliminary Report
are confirmed. After receipt of the report disciplinary proceedings were
initiated by the disciplinary committee of BCCI against the appellant.
Show-cause notice dated 04.09.2013 was given to the appellant.
Following allegations in show-cause notice were made against the
appellant in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5:
"3. On the morning of 16th May, 2013, it came to be widely reported
in the media that the Delhi Police, Special Cell had arrested you
along with other fellow players on suspicion of having indulged in
spot fixing during certain matches of Rajasthan Royals with whom
you are contracted to play for in the IPL. Reportedly at the time
of your arrest, you were allegedly in the company of one Mr. Jiju
Janardhan who according to Delhi Police is ad bookie.
4. It also came to be reported that the Delhi Police had also arrested
a number of bookies on the same day, who were allegedly involved
in conspiring with you and the other players to fix spots for personal
financial gain.
5. Acting on the information that was provided by the police
authorities to the media which was in turn reported across the
country, the BCCI on 17th May, 2013, suspended you from all
cricketing activities pending an inquiry into your actions by the
BCCI. The BCCI appointed a Commissioner, Mr. Ravi Sawani,
the head of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Unit, to conduct a preliminary
inquiry and submit a report to the BCCI as to his findings."
6. The appellant was accused of offences under Articles 2.1.1,
2.1.2 and 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.4.1. and 2.4.2 of Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI.
The appellant was asked to show-cause as to why action should not be
taken against him under the Rules. Date, 13.09.2013 was fixed for hearing
and appellant was asked to submit his written statement within a week.
Reply to show-cause notice was submitted by the appellant on 11.09.2013.
In his reply the appellant denied his involvement in spot fixing. In his
reply apart from stating other facts following was stated:
i) Fixing - There is absolutely no reliable material even to find out
a charge of fixing against me. What is relied upon is the alleged
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
779
conversation between my friend Shri Jiju Janardhan a follow
cricketer and some others. Shri Jiju Janardhan is very much
familiar with my mannerism and habit in the cricket field as he
knows me from the age of 18. It is not uncommon to use a
towel in afternoon matches particularly in a place like Mohali in
the month of April-May. Enough photographs are there to show
that in many of the earlier matches I played, white colour towel
had been used by me. In fact even other well known cricketers
use white towel as a matter of habit. Even in the very same
match towels were used by other players. Apart from a sheer
coincidence nothing culpable can be attributed to me by reason
of using a towel. The allegation that in the first over no towel
was used cannot be correct.
ii) What is alleged as warming up against me is not really warming
up but a manner of play which I did in other plays also.
iii) As regards conceding of 14 runs I may respectfully point out
there was no guarantee that the Captain will ask me to bowl in
a particular over and if so, depending on the field, the pitch,
batsman etc. the bowler will have to bowl. It may be stated
here that my bowling is considered pace bowling estimated at
an average of 135 kms. per hour and there is no guarantee for
a bowler regarding the runs he is likely to concede unless deliberately either a no ball or wide is bowled. Conceding runs therefore, cannot be manipulated as alleged. There is no allegation
that in the concerned second over any wide or no ball was
bowled.
iv) As regards seeking, accepting, offering or agreeing to accept
any bribe there is no trace of evidence pointing out to any such
incident at all.
v) There had been no failure or refusal on my part to perform my
abilities in the Matches as all the balls bowled by me will show
that I have done my best in bowling on that day also."
7. The appellant appeared on 13.09.2013 and was heard, the
disciplinary committee communicated its decision dated 13.09.2013 vide
letter dated 03.10.2013, with regard to appellant in paragraph 9 to 14
following was held:
S. SREESANTH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN
INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
"9. We have considered the inquiry Report of the Commissioner,
his written statement before the Inquiry Commissioner, his
written reply to the Show Cause Notice and his oral defence
before us.
10. The evidence against Sreesanth in relation to the charge
comprises to two audio recordings which are recorded by the
Delhi Police. The first of these audio recordings is a conversation
between Jiju Janardhan, his close friend, and a bookie called
CP (Chandresh Patel). Both have been arrested by the Delhi
Police. In the said conversation Jiju Janardhan is said to be
promising that in the second over to be bowled by Sreesanth 14
or more runs would be conceded by him. The consideration to
be paid for such fixing would be Rs.10 Lacs.
11. In his written reply before us Sreesanth has admitted the factum
of the alleged conversation with Jiju Janardhan. The Delhi
Police along with the charge sheet has given him a copy of the
recorded transcripts. He states that he is a superstitious person
and the use of the towel is due to the same. He, however, could
not officer and explanation with regard to the content of the
conversation which deals with conceding of 14 runs for a
consideration. On the contrary, he argues that how many runs
would be conceded would depend upon a large number of
variable factors and not merely on the desire or the will of the
bowler.
12. Even if Sreesanth wants to distance himself from the said
audio recording which he was not privy, there is a cross
reference to this conversation on record at 17.40 hours on
6.5.2013 between Jiju Janardhan and Sreesanth. In the said
conversation, Jiju Janardhan admits being in possession of
Sreesanth's money Jiju Janardhan is head referring to receipt
of Rs. 10 Lacs of which he would give 7 lacs to Sreesanth and
retain 3 lacs for himself. Jiju Janardhan further proposes to use
some money of Sreesanth for purchase of mobile phones. The
circumstantial evidence clearly indicates that this Rs. 10 Lacs
is part of the amount deposited with Jiju Janardhan for
influencing Sreesanth for underperforming in the second over
of the match.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
781
13. The third piece of evidence is the actual conduct during the
match itself where Sreesanth conceded 13 runs. The two tape
recordings reveal facts which reasonably match with the actual
developments in the second over on the field. The number of
runs conceded is only one less than promised. The sum of Rs.10
Lacs being promised as a part of the transaction fixed by Jiju
Janardhan is confirmed in the second audio recording. On being
asked to explain about this Rs.10 Lacs lying with Jiju Janardhan
as mentioned in the second audio recording, Sreesanth gave a
vague explanation stating that this may be reference by way of
a charity to an orphanage which he intended to be visiting. We
are not inclined to accept the said explanation.
14. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that Sreesanth is
guilty of corruption under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the
Code. We also find him guilty under Article 2.2.3 for betting
and Article 2.3.1 and Article 2.4.2 of the Code for bringing
disrepute to the game of Cricket and failure to disclose to the
ACU BCCI full details of any approaches or invitations to
engage in conduct that would amount to breach of the Code.
We also hold him guilty of misconduct under Article 32, of the
BCCI Memorandum Rules and Regulations."
8. On quantum of punishment following was directed:
"Sh. Shreesanth - In view of the allegations of match fixing and
non-reporting of the offences, he is banned from playing or
representing for life. He shall during this period not be entitled to
be associated with any activities of the BCCI or its affiliates."
9. In the criminal case chargesheet against the appellant and the
other accused was submitted. The appellant filed an application for
discharge. The application for discharge was heard and by order dated
25.07.2015, the appellant was discharged from the offences. Against
the order of discharge an appeal has been filed which is pending, at
present, before the Delhi High Court. After passing of the order of
discharge, appellant made a request before the disciplinary committee
of BCCI to review its order. On 18.10.2015 disciplinary committee
refused to review its earlier decision. The appellant through Kerala Cricket
Association addressed an e-mail to BCCI requesting to issue No
S. SREESANTH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN
INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Objection Certificate to him to enable him to participate in the Scotland
Premier League. The BCCI by the communication dated 12.01.2017
refused to issue No Object Certificate. Another e-mail was sent by the
appellant on 11.02.2017 praying to revoke the ban imposed on him and
issue No Objection Certificate to him to participate in the Scotland Premier
League. The BCCI reiterated its earlier stand.
10. An Advocate's notice was given by the appellant on 16.02.2017
to BCCI and thereafter a Writ Petition No. 6925 of 2017 was filed before
the Kerala High Court. In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing the proceedings of the disciplinary committee communicated
by letter dated 03.10.2013 and also prayed for a mandamus or other writ
or order commanding the BCCI and its Chairman to lift the ban imposed
by the BCCI Committee by order dated 03.10.2013 so as to enable the
appellant to participate in the Cricket matches both in national and
international level. The appellant has also sought declaration that reports
are illegal and they were prepared without due compliance of law.
11. The BCCI filed a counter-affidavit in the writ petition. The
writ petition was heard and the learned Single Judge by order dated
07.08.2017 allowed the writ petition quashing the life ban and other
punishment imposed on the appellant pursuant to the disciplinary
committee proceedings.