The Kerala High Court today ordered the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to lift the lifetime ban imposed on cricketer S Sreesanth..The judgment was delivered by Justice A Muhamed Mostaque. Advocate Sivan Madathil appeared for Sreesanth, reports ToI..The cricketer had challenged the ban imposed by BCCI for alleged spot fixing although a Delhi court had exonerated him of the criminal charges in 2015..The BCCI had, however, refused to relent and withdraw the ban imposed on the former fast bowler..Sreesanth had then moved Kerala High Court challenging the decision of the BCCI..The Court began its judgment with an observation on the exponential growth of cricket into a “revenue generating sports” due to the evolution of broadcasting live matches..It noted that “money does not grow over a 22-yard pitch but comes out of the hands of millions who are passionately entertained through the game.”.The Court then considered whether the act of the BCCI in banning Sreesanth was a “public function”, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of the Court. It proceeded to answer the same in the affirmative, holding that though the action essentially arose out of breach of contract, the act arose out of the necessity to restore the reputation of the game..Hence, the Court held that the action of BCCI was in discharge of public function..It then proceeded to consider the merits of the case. The ban by BCCI was largely based on the transcripts of telephonic conversation between Sreesanth and one Jiju Janardhanan, a close friend of Sreesanth..It was the case of Delhi police, which had investigated the criminal case, that Sreesanth had agreed to concede more than 14 runs in the second over of a match in exchange for Rs. 10 lakh. Sreesanth was to place his towel in his pocket to confirm that the deal was on..The High Court went on to note that neither did Sreesanth concede more than 14 runs in the second over nor did the conversation between Sreesanth and Jiji reveal any spot fixing. Further, the Court also noted that the telephonic conversation between Jiju Janardhanan and a bookie, Chandresh Chandubhai Patel clearly indicated that Sreesanth was not willing to commit to the alleged spot fixing..The Court held that there was no evidence to prove that Sreesanth participated in the alleged spot fixing and the BCCI disciplinary committee erred in its conclusion which it arrived at without any evidence..According to the Court, the only assumption that could be made against Sreesanth was that he had knowledge about the betting but did not inform the authorities of the same..The Court held that the four years ban suffered by him from all forms of cricket was sufficient punishment to meet the ends of justice. It, therefore, quashed punishment imposed by BCCI while cautioning the BCCI to separate wheat from chaff while resorting to disciplinary actions..The Court, however, also had a word of condemnation for Sreesanth who did not take exception to Jiju Janardhanan’s conduct. “He should have publicly taken exception to the conduct of Jiju Janardhanan, complacency on the part of Sreesanth is really condemnable”, the Court noted..Story to be updated..Image taken from here.
The Kerala High Court today ordered the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to lift the lifetime ban imposed on cricketer S Sreesanth..The judgment was delivered by Justice A Muhamed Mostaque. Advocate Sivan Madathil appeared for Sreesanth, reports ToI..The cricketer had challenged the ban imposed by BCCI for alleged spot fixing although a Delhi court had exonerated him of the criminal charges in 2015..The BCCI had, however, refused to relent and withdraw the ban imposed on the former fast bowler..Sreesanth had then moved Kerala High Court challenging the decision of the BCCI..The Court began its judgment with an observation on the exponential growth of cricket into a “revenue generating sports” due to the evolution of broadcasting live matches..It noted that “money does not grow over a 22-yard pitch but comes out of the hands of millions who are passionately entertained through the game.”.The Court then considered whether the act of the BCCI in banning Sreesanth was a “public function”, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of the Court. It proceeded to answer the same in the affirmative, holding that though the action essentially arose out of breach of contract, the act arose out of the necessity to restore the reputation of the game..Hence, the Court held that the action of BCCI was in discharge of public function..It then proceeded to consider the merits of the case. The ban by BCCI was largely based on the transcripts of telephonic conversation between Sreesanth and one Jiju Janardhanan, a close friend of Sreesanth..It was the case of Delhi police, which had investigated the criminal case, that Sreesanth had agreed to concede more than 14 runs in the second over of a match in exchange for Rs. 10 lakh. Sreesanth was to place his towel in his pocket to confirm that the deal was on..The High Court went on to note that neither did Sreesanth concede more than 14 runs in the second over nor did the conversation between Sreesanth and Jiji reveal any spot fixing. Further, the Court also noted that the telephonic conversation between Jiju Janardhanan and a bookie, Chandresh Chandubhai Patel clearly indicated that Sreesanth was not willing to commit to the alleged spot fixing..The Court held that there was no evidence to prove that Sreesanth participated in the alleged spot fixing and the BCCI disciplinary committee erred in its conclusion which it arrived at without any evidence..According to the Court, the only assumption that could be made against Sreesanth was that he had knowledge about the betting but did not inform the authorities of the same..The Court held that the four years ban suffered by him from all forms of cricket was sufficient punishment to meet the ends of justice. It, therefore, quashed punishment imposed by BCCI while cautioning the BCCI to separate wheat from chaff while resorting to disciplinary actions..The Court, however, also had a word of condemnation for Sreesanth who did not take exception to Jiju Janardhanan’s conduct. “He should have publicly taken exception to the conduct of Jiju Janardhanan, complacency on the part of Sreesanth is really condemnable”, the Court noted..Story to be updated..Image taken from here.
