“…cricket being not only a passion but a great unifying force in this country, a zero tolerance approach towards any wrong doing alone can satisfy the cry for cleansing…”. – Justice TS Thakur in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors..In January last year, the Supreme Court of India was called upon to decide on allegations of spot-fixing in the Indian Premier League (IPL). A subsequent report by former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha opened up the proverbial can of worms on the BCCI’s cash cow..In fact, this is not the first time the courts have made an attempt at salvaging the integrity of cricket in India. In this edition of the Lawyer’s Briefs, we look at five instances where the administration of the country’s favourite sport has been pulled up by the courts..State of Play.In 2004, a bidding war for broadcast rights ensued between Zee Telefilms and ESPN Star Sports. The BCCI initially granted the license to Zee, after which ESPN approached the Bombay High Court. In the midst of the litigation before the High Court, BCCI decided to terminate its contract with Zee..When Zee filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, it was challenged as to whether the BCCI could be approached against under Article 32 of the Constitution..After hearing stalwarts like KK Venugopal, Soli Sorabjee and Harish Salve, a 3:2 majority held that the BCCI was not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution..Having said that, the court recognized that the BCCI was performing functions akin to public duties and held that if there is any breach of a constitutional or statutory obligation, the aggrieved party could invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.. (Read the judgement here.).2. Decision Review.In 1997, cricketer Manoj Prabhakar made serious allegations of match-fixing against his former teammates Mohammed Azharuddin, Ajay Jadeja and Nayan Mongia, among others. The scandal sent shockwaves across the country and prompted the BCCI to constitute a one-man committee comprising former Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud to probe the allegations..After questioning several cricketers, Justice Chandrachud dismissed the charges as “concocted, vague, and unfounded”. However neither the Indian government nor the BCCI were content with the report, and the CBI was asked to intervene. The CBI found that Azharuddin, Jadeja and quite ironically, Prabhakar were involved in the maligned practice..The BCCI would later constitute a committee headed by a Commissioner to ban Azharuddin for life..When the matter came before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in 2012, the court held the appointment of the Commissioner and the disciplinary proceedings against Azhar to be bad in law, and overturned the life ban. (Read the judgment here.).3. Power Play.In 2010, the BCCI would witness a power tussle at its top, between founding IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi and erstwhile President N Srinivasan..Their falling out resulted in Modi being suspended by the BCCI on account of a host of charges involving financial irregularities against him..Modi would approach the Bombay High Court as well as the Supreme Court to demand for an independent inquiry into the charges, as opposed to the one carried out by the BCCI. However, both courts rejected his pleas. This paved the way for his ouster from the BCCI in 2013, after a committee headed by Arun Jaitley found him guilty of eight counts of misconduct..4. Raising the Finger.Another IPL controversy reared its ugly head in 2013; this time it was allegations of spot-fixing against two franchises, Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals. After the Delhi Police had received a tip-off on the involvement of three players in spot-fixing, the BCCI decided to intervene and constitute a panel to probe the charges..The constitution of that panel, comprising retired judges of the Madras High Court, was then successfully challenged in the Bombay High Court by the Cricket Association of Bihar. The BCCI subsequently constituted a fresh panel, headed by former Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Mukul Mudgal..That panel would release a report finding CSK head Gurunath Meiyappan guilty of indulging in betting, which was in contravention of the BCCI Corruption Code. The committee also submitted to the Court a sealed envelope which contained the names of those involved in the scandal. The court then empowered the committee to conduct further investigations into these persons, after the completion of which it was found that Meiyappan and Rajasthan Royals owner Raj Kundra were guilty of the charges..The court then constituted a fresh committee headed by former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha and also comprising former Supreme Court judges Raveendran and Bhan JJ. to determine the quantum of punishment for the franchise owners. Six months later, the new committee produced a damning verdict, suspending the two franchises for 2 years and their owners for life..That same committee recently released a report containing suggestions on how to improve the working of the BCCI. Among the suggestions made were one vote per state, limited tenures for office bearers, details norms to ensure there is no conflict of interest, increased oversight and transparency, and legalisation of betting..And it seems likely that these recommendations might be enforced by the Supreme Court. In January this year, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur agreed to hear the Cricket Association of Bihar’s plea on implementing these very suggestions..5. Batting for Change.Amidst charges of maladministration against the Delhi District Cricket Association, the Delhi High Court, in November of last year, had appointed Justice Mukul Mudgal to oversee the test match between India and South Africa in the capital, and also present a report on the workings of the DDCA..In a scathing report presented to a bench of S Muralidhar and V Bakhru JJ. this January, Justice Mudgal highlighted lack of transparency, poor record keeping, huge delays in bill payments, defunct sub-committees, mismanagement and rampant ad-hocism among the issues related to the functioning of the DDCA..At one point, it was doubtful as to whether the Feroz Shah Kotla would play host to the WorldT20 games scheduled to be held in the capital this month. However, the counsels appearing the association assured the court that most of the regulatory clearances have been obtained..Once again, Justice Mudgal has been given the charge of ensuring that the DDCA meets all the statutory requirements for hosting the matches. In the last hearing, the High Court directed the DDCA to submit a compliance report to Justice Mudgal within a fortnight of the completion of the T20 matches..Image courtesy:.Lead image.Mohammad Azharuddin.Modi and Srinivasan.Justice Mudgal
“…cricket being not only a passion but a great unifying force in this country, a zero tolerance approach towards any wrong doing alone can satisfy the cry for cleansing…”. – Justice TS Thakur in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors..In January last year, the Supreme Court of India was called upon to decide on allegations of spot-fixing in the Indian Premier League (IPL). A subsequent report by former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha opened up the proverbial can of worms on the BCCI’s cash cow..In fact, this is not the first time the courts have made an attempt at salvaging the integrity of cricket in India. In this edition of the Lawyer’s Briefs, we look at five instances where the administration of the country’s favourite sport has been pulled up by the courts..State of Play.In 2004, a bidding war for broadcast rights ensued between Zee Telefilms and ESPN Star Sports. The BCCI initially granted the license to Zee, after which ESPN approached the Bombay High Court. In the midst of the litigation before the High Court, BCCI decided to terminate its contract with Zee..When Zee filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, it was challenged as to whether the BCCI could be approached against under Article 32 of the Constitution..After hearing stalwarts like KK Venugopal, Soli Sorabjee and Harish Salve, a 3:2 majority held that the BCCI was not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution..Having said that, the court recognized that the BCCI was performing functions akin to public duties and held that if there is any breach of a constitutional or statutory obligation, the aggrieved party could invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.. (Read the judgement here.).2. Decision Review.In 1997, cricketer Manoj Prabhakar made serious allegations of match-fixing against his former teammates Mohammed Azharuddin, Ajay Jadeja and Nayan Mongia, among others. The scandal sent shockwaves across the country and prompted the BCCI to constitute a one-man committee comprising former Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud to probe the allegations..After questioning several cricketers, Justice Chandrachud dismissed the charges as “concocted, vague, and unfounded”. However neither the Indian government nor the BCCI were content with the report, and the CBI was asked to intervene. The CBI found that Azharuddin, Jadeja and quite ironically, Prabhakar were involved in the maligned practice..The BCCI would later constitute a committee headed by a Commissioner to ban Azharuddin for life..When the matter came before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in 2012, the court held the appointment of the Commissioner and the disciplinary proceedings against Azhar to be bad in law, and overturned the life ban. (Read the judgment here.).3. Power Play.In 2010, the BCCI would witness a power tussle at its top, between founding IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi and erstwhile President N Srinivasan..Their falling out resulted in Modi being suspended by the BCCI on account of a host of charges involving financial irregularities against him..Modi would approach the Bombay High Court as well as the Supreme Court to demand for an independent inquiry into the charges, as opposed to the one carried out by the BCCI. However, both courts rejected his pleas. This paved the way for his ouster from the BCCI in 2013, after a committee headed by Arun Jaitley found him guilty of eight counts of misconduct..4. Raising the Finger.Another IPL controversy reared its ugly head in 2013; this time it was allegations of spot-fixing against two franchises, Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals. After the Delhi Police had received a tip-off on the involvement of three players in spot-fixing, the BCCI decided to intervene and constitute a panel to probe the charges..The constitution of that panel, comprising retired judges of the Madras High Court, was then successfully challenged in the Bombay High Court by the Cricket Association of Bihar. The BCCI subsequently constituted a fresh panel, headed by former Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Mukul Mudgal..That panel would release a report finding CSK head Gurunath Meiyappan guilty of indulging in betting, which was in contravention of the BCCI Corruption Code. The committee also submitted to the Court a sealed envelope which contained the names of those involved in the scandal. The court then empowered the committee to conduct further investigations into these persons, after the completion of which it was found that Meiyappan and Rajasthan Royals owner Raj Kundra were guilty of the charges..The court then constituted a fresh committee headed by former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha and also comprising former Supreme Court judges Raveendran and Bhan JJ. to determine the quantum of punishment for the franchise owners. Six months later, the new committee produced a damning verdict, suspending the two franchises for 2 years and their owners for life..That same committee recently released a report containing suggestions on how to improve the working of the BCCI. Among the suggestions made were one vote per state, limited tenures for office bearers, details norms to ensure there is no conflict of interest, increased oversight and transparency, and legalisation of betting..And it seems likely that these recommendations might be enforced by the Supreme Court. In January this year, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur agreed to hear the Cricket Association of Bihar’s plea on implementing these very suggestions..5. Batting for Change.Amidst charges of maladministration against the Delhi District Cricket Association, the Delhi High Court, in November of last year, had appointed Justice Mukul Mudgal to oversee the test match between India and South Africa in the capital, and also present a report on the workings of the DDCA..In a scathing report presented to a bench of S Muralidhar and V Bakhru JJ. this January, Justice Mudgal highlighted lack of transparency, poor record keeping, huge delays in bill payments, defunct sub-committees, mismanagement and rampant ad-hocism among the issues related to the functioning of the DDCA..At one point, it was doubtful as to whether the Feroz Shah Kotla would play host to the WorldT20 games scheduled to be held in the capital this month. However, the counsels appearing the association assured the court that most of the regulatory clearances have been obtained..Once again, Justice Mudgal has been given the charge of ensuring that the DDCA meets all the statutory requirements for hosting the matches. In the last hearing, the High Court directed the DDCA to submit a compliance report to Justice Mudgal within a fortnight of the completion of the T20 matches..Image courtesy:.Lead image.Mohammad Azharuddin.Modi and Srinivasan.Justice Mudgal
