The Supreme Court today upheld the findings by the Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) against former India cricketer S Sreesanth..However, the Court held that the quantum of punishment needs to be reviewed..The Court held that the BCCI has followed its procedure laid down in its anti-corruption code, and Sreesanth cannot claim violation of natural justice..However, as regards imposition of the life ban, the Court said that the Disciplinary Committee did not consider mitigating circumstances. It therefore set aside the punishment part of the BCCI decision and ordered the Committee to rehear Sreesanth on the quantum of punishment. The decision with regarding Sreesanth has to be taken in three months..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph..Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, representing the fast bowler, had argued that there was no direct evidence to implicate Sreesanth and that the evidence provided by the prosecution was only circumstantial evidence..It was his case that circumstantial evidence is good only if the incident alleged actually took place. It cannot be used to establish something which has not happened. In this case, the allegation was that Sreesanth took money to give away 14 runs in an over, but only conceded 13 runs in that over. Thus, the alleged incident did not happen. Hence, circumstantial evidence will not be good enough to make out a case against Sreesanth, Khurshid had argued..Khurshid had placed extensive reliance on the judgment of the single judge Bench of Kerala High Court which had acquitted Sreesanth and quashed the lifetime ban..“If at all he is guilty of anything, it is for failure to disclose about fixing etc despite having knowledge. That will make him guilty only of the least punishable offence. There is nothing on record to warrant a lifetime ban”, Khurshid had told the Court..Khurshid had also submitted that no cricketer has been given a life ban anywhere in the world for such an offence..“Mohd Azharuddin was given life ban but it was overturned. Pakistan’s Salim Malik got a life ban but it was overturned. Hansie Cronje was given life ban but he died in a plane crash when proceedings were not closed.”.The life ban on playing cricket was imposed on Sreesanth by the BCCI in view of his alleged involvement in spot-fixing during the 2013 season of the Indian Premier League (IPL). All the 36 accused in the scandal had been discharged from the case by the Patiala House Court in July 2015..Despite the same, the BCCI had declined to reverse its disciplinary order against Sreesanth, which it asserted was passed on the basis of evidence..Thereafter, in August last year, a single judge of the Kerala High Court had lifted the life ban and set aside all proceedings by the BCCI. However, on appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court had restored the BCCI ban, leading to the current appeal in Supreme Court..Interestingly, Sreesanth’s counsel had told the Court during the hearing that he is still loyal to the BCCI and would like to reconnect with the cricketing body if the ban is overturned..Read the judgment below. .Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
The Supreme Court today upheld the findings by the Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) against former India cricketer S Sreesanth..However, the Court held that the quantum of punishment needs to be reviewed..The Court held that the BCCI has followed its procedure laid down in its anti-corruption code, and Sreesanth cannot claim violation of natural justice..However, as regards imposition of the life ban, the Court said that the Disciplinary Committee did not consider mitigating circumstances. It therefore set aside the punishment part of the BCCI decision and ordered the Committee to rehear Sreesanth on the quantum of punishment. The decision with regarding Sreesanth has to be taken in three months..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph..Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, representing the fast bowler, had argued that there was no direct evidence to implicate Sreesanth and that the evidence provided by the prosecution was only circumstantial evidence..It was his case that circumstantial evidence is good only if the incident alleged actually took place. It cannot be used to establish something which has not happened. In this case, the allegation was that Sreesanth took money to give away 14 runs in an over, but only conceded 13 runs in that over. Thus, the alleged incident did not happen. Hence, circumstantial evidence will not be good enough to make out a case against Sreesanth, Khurshid had argued..Khurshid had placed extensive reliance on the judgment of the single judge Bench of Kerala High Court which had acquitted Sreesanth and quashed the lifetime ban..“If at all he is guilty of anything, it is for failure to disclose about fixing etc despite having knowledge. That will make him guilty only of the least punishable offence. There is nothing on record to warrant a lifetime ban”, Khurshid had told the Court..Khurshid had also submitted that no cricketer has been given a life ban anywhere in the world for such an offence..“Mohd Azharuddin was given life ban but it was overturned. Pakistan’s Salim Malik got a life ban but it was overturned. Hansie Cronje was given life ban but he died in a plane crash when proceedings were not closed.”.The life ban on playing cricket was imposed on Sreesanth by the BCCI in view of his alleged involvement in spot-fixing during the 2013 season of the Indian Premier League (IPL). All the 36 accused in the scandal had been discharged from the case by the Patiala House Court in July 2015..Despite the same, the BCCI had declined to reverse its disciplinary order against Sreesanth, which it asserted was passed on the basis of evidence..Thereafter, in August last year, a single judge of the Kerala High Court had lifted the life ban and set aside all proceedings by the BCCI. However, on appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court had restored the BCCI ban, leading to the current appeal in Supreme Court..Interestingly, Sreesanth’s counsel had told the Court during the hearing that he is still loyal to the BCCI and would like to reconnect with the cricketing body if the ban is overturned..Read the judgment below. .Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
