கிரிக்கெட் சூதாட்ட வழக்கு : மாமனார் சீனிவாசன் தப்பித்தார்! மருமகன் குருநாத் மெய்யப்பன் மாட்டிக் கொண்டார்! -உச்ச நீதிமன்ற தீர்ப்பின் முழு விபரம்!

இந்தியன் பிரிமியர் கிரிக்கெட் லீக் சூதாட்ட வழக்கில்,  உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தில் நீதிபதிகள் டி.எஸ்.தாகூர், இப்ராகிம் கலிபுல்லா ஆகியோர் இன்று (22.01.2015)  பிற்பகல் 2.30 மணிக்கு தீர்ப்பளித்தனர்.

பி.சி.சி.ஐ., தலைவர் சீனிவாசன் மீதான குற்றச்சாட்டுக்கள் நிரூபிக்கப்படவில்லை. ஆனால், இவரது மருமகன் குருநாத் மெய்யப்பன், ராஜ் குந்த்ரா சூதாட்டத்தில் ஈடுபட்டது நிரூபணம் ஆனது.

மேலும், வணிக ரீதியில் சீனிவாசன் செயல்பட்டதால், அவர் பி.சி.சி., தேர்தலில் போட்டியிட முடியாத சூழல் ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது. இந்த தேர்தலை 6 மாத காலத்திற்கு நிறுத்தி வைக்கவும் உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

சூதாட்ட வழக்கில் தண்டனையை முடிவு செய்ய நீதிபதிகள் ஆர்.எம்.லோதா, அசோக்பான், ரவீந்திரன் ஆகிய 3 பேர் கொண்ட குழுவையும் உச்ச நீதிமன்றம்  நியமித்துள்ளது.

உச்ச நீதிமன்ற தீர்ப்பின் முழு விபரம், நமது வாசகர்களின் பார்வைக்கு இங்கு பதிவு செய்துள்ளோம்.

 -டாக்டர் துரைபெஞ்சமின்.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4235 OF 2014

Board of Control for Cricket in India …Appellant

Versus

Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors. …Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4236 OF 2014

Cricket Association of Bihar …Appellant

Versus

Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2015

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.34228 of 2014)

Cricket Association of Bihar …Appellant

Versus

The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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

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 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 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 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 among others against one Gurunath Meiyappan. The High Court has by its order dated 30th July,

2013 passed in PIL No.55 of 2013 granted that relief but

declined a possible reconstitution of the panel. Aggrieved, BCCI has 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 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 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 of2013.

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 Mr. N.Srinivisan – 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-India Cements Limited, a public Limited Company.

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 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. 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 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. In the same meeting Regulation 6.2.4 of the IPL Regulations was amended to exclude from its operation events like IPL and Champions’ League twenty-20. We shall presently turn to Regulation 6.2.4 but before we do that we need tocomplete the factual narrative. 6

7. In April 2013, Special Cell, Delhi Police, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, is said to have received secret information that certain members of the underworld were involved in fixing of matches in the recently concluded edition of the IPL. FIR No.20 of 2013 was, on that information, registered by the Special Cell, Delhi Police, under Sections 420 and 120 B of the IPC and Mr. S. Sreesanth, Mr. Ajit Chandila and Mr.Ankit Chavan of the Rajasthan Royals alongwith  bookies detained for allegations of spot-fixing. Shortly thereafter Mr. Gurunathan Meiyappan, son-in-law of Mr. N.Srinivasan was also arrested by the Mumbai Police on 25th May, 2013 in a spot fixing/betting case. Soon after the arrest on 26th May, 2013 came an announcement that a Commission comprising two members of the BCCI and one independent member would be constituted to enquire into allegations of betting and spot fixing. This was followed by nomination of two former Judges of the High Court of Madras and Shri Sanjay Jagdale as members of a Probe Commission to enquire into the allegations of betting and spot fixing. Shri Sanjay Jagdale, however, resigned as member of the Probe Commission leaving the two former Judges to complete the probe. Mr. N.Srinivasan announced that he was stepping aside from the post of President of the BCCI until the probe was completed ostensibly because of the alleged involvement of his son-in-law in the betting and spot fixing racket.

8. It was in the above backdrop that the appellantAssociation filed W.P. No.55 of 2013 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, inter alia, for a declaration that appointment of the two-member Probe Commission was ultra vires of the Rules and Regulations of the BCCI and for a mandamus directing constitution of a panel comprising retired Judges to hold an enquiry against among others Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan for his involvement in betting and spot fixing. The petitioner further prayed for termination of the franchise agreement entered into between the BCCI, on the one hand, and Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals on the other. A mandamus directing institution of disciplinary proceedings against Mr. N.Srinivasan was also prayed for, besides a prayer for his suspension pending the probe and other proceedings. The appellant-Association in addition prayed for a prohibition against Mr. N.Srinivisan restraining him from contesting the election for the post of President of BCCI in future and representing the BCCI in the International Cricket Council (ICC).

9. By its order dated 30th July, 2013, a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay declared that the Probe Commission set up by the BCCI was not validly constituted being in violation of the provisions of Rules 2.2 and 3 of Section 6 of the IPL Operational Rules. The High Court, however, declined to grant any further relief by way of constituting a panel to conduct an enquiry under the supervision of the High Court. The High Court was of the view that constitution of a Probe Committee under Section 6 of the IPL Operational Rules was the prerogative of the BCCI. Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014 preferred by the BCCI assails the said order of the High Court to the extent it declares the constitution of the Probe Commission to be illegal and ultra vires of the relevant rules and regulations. The Cricket Association of Bihar has also, as noticed earlier, assailed the very same order in Civil Appeal No.4236 of 2014 to the extent it has declined to grant further and consequential relief to the appellant.

1. When this matter came up for hearing on 27th

September, 2013 before a Bench comprising A.K. Patnaik

and J.S. Khehar JJ., this Court permitted the Annual

General Meeting of the respondent-BCCI to be held on 29th September, 2013 as scheduled and so also election to the post of President, subject to the condition that in case respondent No.2-Mr. N.Srinivisan got elected, he will not take charge until further orders. When the matter came up again on 8th October, 2013, this Court noted that although Mr. N.Srinivasan had been elected as the President of the Board yet a probe into the allegations of betting and spot fixing was necessary. A reading of order dated 8th October, 2013 passed by this Court would show that the constitution of the Probe Committee comprising Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, retired Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Nilay Dutt, Senior Advocate, Gauhati High Court was  passed with the consent of the parties. Justice Mukul Mudgal was appointed Chairman of the Probe Committee.

1. The Probe Committee started its proceedings in the

right earnest and invited all such persons as had any

information in their possession regarding the Terms of

Reference to furnish such information to the Committee. It also interacted with Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj Kundara and the players against whom the BCCI had taken action for match fixing and spot fixing. Besides the Committee

interacted with the law enforcement agencies, former players associated with IPL, personnel from the team management, eminent sports journalists and sport

commentators, personnel from anti-corruption unit of the

BCCI and ICC, personnel from the BCCI and the IPL Governing Body and persons whose name featured in the documents pertaining to the Terms of Reference. Based on the enquiries made by it from all concerned, the Committee submitted a report dated 9th February, 2014, in which the Committee arrived at the following conclusions: 

(i) That Gurunath Meiyappan formed an integral part

of Chennai Super Kings and most persons viewed

him as the face of the team, though de-jure

ownership vested in India Cements Ltd.

(ii) That Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official

within the meaning of IPL Operational Rules if not

de facto owner of CSK.

(iii) That Gurunath Meiyappan had knowledge of or

was in a position to easily access sensitive team

information, team strategies knowledge about

match conditions etc. which knowledge was

outside the purview of an ordinary person

following the game of cricket.

(iv) That Gurunath Meiyappan was also a participant

under IPL Anti-corruption Code hence IPL Rules

and Regulations were squarely applicable to him.

(v) That Gurunath Meiyappan was in regular touch

with bookies and punters.

(vi) That several calls were traced between Gurunath

Meiyappan and Vindoo Dara Singh who was

himself a punter in close proximity with several 12

other bookies, evident from the telephonic

transcripts produced by the Bombay Police.

(vii) That Mr. Ramesh Vyas and Jupiter were acting for

Vindoo Dara Singh who was also placing bets for

certain IPL stakeholders and actors including Mr.

Gurunath Meiyappan. Mr. Meiyappan was in close

contact with Mr. Vikram Agarwal who is a hotelier

and alleged punter operating from Chennai as

revealed by call record details produced by the

Chennai Police in Crime No.1 of 2013 registered

by the CBCID Branch.

(viii) That Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan would regularly

place bets in IPL matches both in favour of his

team (i.e. CSK) and against his team – a fact

established from call records produced by the

Mumbai Police.

(ix) That Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan would place bets

through Vindoo Dara Singh and such bets were

even placed during the course of IPL match as

revealed by transcripts produced by Mumbai

Police. 

(x) That in one instance Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan

made certain predictions to Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh

regarding the runs that would be scored in a

match between CSK and Rajasthan Royals held on

12th May, 2013 at Jaipur. According to Mr.

Meiyappan’s prediction that CSK would score 130-

140 runs came true as CSK actually scored 141

runs only.

2. The Probe Committee on the above findings held Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan guilty of betting which in its opinionwas accentuated by his position in the CSK. What is important is that the Probe Committee held that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan had in his acts of betting the implicit approval of the franchisee owner India Cements thereby bringing the team to disrepute and violating Sections 2.2.1 and 2.14 of the IPL Operational Rules besides Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.3 of the IPL Anti-Corruption Code and Articles 2.4.4 of the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and TeamOfficials. 

3. The Committee also held that franchisee owner CSK was responsible for its failure to ensure that Mr. GurunathMeiyappan complied with BCCI Anti-Corruption Code, IPL Operational Rules and IPL Regulations. The franchisee’s actions were on that basis held to be in violation of Section 4.4.1 of the IPL Operational Rules and Clause 11.3 of the franchise’s agreement. The Committee summed up its conclusion regarding the investigation against Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and India Cements Ltd. the owner of ICL in the following passage:

“Thus, the Committee is of the view that for the acts of betting by Mr. Meiyappan, which is further accentuated by the position he held in CSK, which was held by Mr. Meiyappan with the implicit approval of the franchisee owner India Cements, Mr. Meiyappan is in violation of Sections 2.2.1 and 2.14 the IPL Operational Rules for bringing the game in disrepute, Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.2. and 2.2.3 of the IPL Anti Corruption Code for his acts of betting and Articles 2.4.4 of the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials, for bring disrepute to the game of cricket. The said illegal acts further stand accentuated in light of his position/role in CSK. The

Committee is also of the opinion that the franchisee owner of CSK is responsible for failing to ensure Mr.Meiyappan (Team Officials) had complied with the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code, IPL Operational rules,

IPL Regulations and hence the franchisee’s actions

are in violation of Section 4.4.1 of the IPL Operational Rules and Clause 11.3 of the franchises agreement.”  (emphasis supplied) 

4. As regards the allegations of betting and spot-fixing in IPL made against Mr. Raj Kundra, the Committee opined that further and serious investigation was required to be conducted into the said allegations for the allegations of betting if proved against Mr. Kundra and his wife Ms. Shilpa Shetty, would constitute a serious infraction of the provisions of IPL Operational Rules, the Anti-Corruption Code and the Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials. The Committee also examined the allegations of match/spot fixing made against several players and noticed that the BCCI had conducted an inquiry into the allegations and found the same to be proved. The Committee was, however, of the view that the disciplinary action taken by BCCI against the delinquent players was adequate and satisfactory.

5. Having said that the Committee referred to allegations of sporting frauds made before it during its interaction with several persons connected with the game. The Committee placed before this Court the names of persons against whom such allegations were made in a sealed envelope. The Committee also mentioned other issues including the issue of “conflict of interest” between Mr. N.Srinivasan as the BCCI President on the one hand and CEO of India Cements Ltd. on the other. The Committee concluded its report by making certain recommendations that would, in its opinion, help remove the malaise of spot/match fixing and detect sporting frauds by BCCI’s Investigation Wing.

6. The report submitted by the Probe Committee was then considered by this Court in its order dated 16th May, 2014 by which this Court permitted the Probe Committee to enquire into the allegations made against those named in the sealed cover filed before the Court by the Committee including Mr. Srinivasan. This Court also provided the necessary manpower for a quick and effective investigation by constituting an investigation team with the direction that the team shall have the power to investigate, require attendance of witnesses and record their depositions and the power to search and seize apart from other powers necessary for conducting the investigation except the power to arrest. The  Committee filed an interim report dated 1st September, 2014, and wound up its proceedings by its third and final report dated 1st November, 2014 in which it took note of the scientific evaluation of Gurunath Meiyappan’s recorded voice which revealed that the recorded voice was indeed that of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan. In a separate report submitted by Mr. Nilay Dutta, the third member of the Probe Committee, Shri Dutta had observed that for the Committee to arrive at a conclusive finding as regards the voice alleged to be that of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, a scientific evaluation was necessary. The Committee’s final report took note of the scientific evaluation and recorded a unanimous conclusion that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan had actually indulged in betting in IPL matches. It, however, found no material to show that Gurunath Meiyappan was involved in match fixing.

7. As regards Mr. Raj Kundra, the Committee came to the conclusion that Mr. Kundra had indulged in betting in violation of BCCI Regulations and IPL Anti-Corruption Code. The Committee further came to the conclusion that N.Srinivasan was not involved in match fixing activity nor was he involved in preventing investigation into match fixing. The Committee held that although Mr. N. Srinivasan was aware of the violation of the players’ code, by individual No.3 yet no action was taken against him by Mr. Srinivasan or any other official who was aware of the infraction.

8. Copies of the report except the portion that related to findings qua the players were made available to counsel for the parties to give them an opportunity to respond to the same. Since Mr. Raj Kundra and Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan were not parties to these proceedings, this Court issued notice to them enclosing and made copies of the reports available to them to enable them to respond to the findings recorded by the Committee. That opportunity was usefully utilized by all the parties concerned by filing their respectiveresponses.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The following questions fall for our determination:

(1) Whether the respondent-Board of Cricket Control of

India 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? (See Paras 20 to 30)

(2) Whether Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were

‘team officials’ of their respective IPL teams – Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals? If so, whether allegations of betting levelled against them stand proved?(See Paras 31 to 46)

(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? (See Paras 47 to62)

(4) Whether allegations of cover up, levelled against Mr.Srinivasan stand proved. If so, to what effect? (See Paras 63 to 65)

(5) Whether Regulation 6.2.4 to the extent it permits administrators to have commercial interest in the IPL,Champions League and Twenty-20 events is legally

bad? (See Paras 66 to 98)

(6) Whether allegations levelled against Mr. Sundar Raman, Chief Operating Officer IPL, stand proved? If so, to what effect? (See Paras 99 to 105) 

(7) What orders and directions need be passed in the light of the discussions and answers to questions 1 to 5 above? (See Paras 106 to 109)

We propose to deal with the questions ad seriatim:

Re: Question No.1:

1. Article 12 of the Constitution of India gives an inclusive definition to the expression ‘State’, and says that for purposes of Part III of the Constitution the expression ‘State’ includes the Parliament of India, the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and Local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. A long line of decisions of this Court have examined and interpreted the expressionappearing in Article 12 with a view to determining whether or not a given entity is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article

2. It is unnecessary to refer to all such decisions pronounced over the past few decades not only because the law is by now fairly well settled by Constitution Bench decisions of this Court but also because the 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 admitted position that respondent-BCCI does discharge several important public functions which make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We may all the same refer to a few landmarks on the judicial landscape only as a reminder to what is settled and binding upon us.

1. In Sukhdev and Ors. etc. v. Bhagatram Sardar

Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr. etc. (1975) 1 SCC 421,

one of the questions that fell for considerations was whether an employee of statutory corporation like Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act 1959, Indian Finance Corporation, established under the Indian Finance Corporation Act, 1948 and the Life Insurance Corporation under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, was entitled to claim protection of Articles 14 and 16 against the Corporation. A Constitution bench of this Court answered the question in the affirmative by a majority of 4:1. Mathew J., in his concurring judgement referred to Marsh v. Alabama (3) 326 U.S. 501: 19 L. 22

1. 265 to hold that even where a corporation is privately performing a public function it is bound by the constitutional standard applicable to all State actions. Marsh v. Alabama (supra), it is noteworthy, arose out of a prosecution launched against a Jehovah’s witness for her refusal to leave the side walk where she was distributing religious pamphlets. She was fined five dollars but aggrieved by her prosecution she approached the Supreme Court to argue that the corporation that owned the town had denied the right of religious liberty available to Marsh. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the contention and declared that administration of public bodies like a town through private entities were tantamount to carrying out functions of a public body. Private right of the corporation could, therefore, be exercised only within constitutional limitations. Black J. speaking for the Court observed:

“The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation”. 

2. Justice Frankfurter in his concurring opinion simply

added that the function discharged by the corporation as a municipal corporation was a public function hence subject to State Regulation.

3. Borrowing support from the above decision and several others this Court in Sukhdev’s case (supra) held:  “97. Another factor which might be considered is whether the operation is an important public function. The combination of State aid and the furnishing of an important public service may result in a conclusion that the operation should be classified as a State agency. If a given function is of such public importance and so closely related to governmental functions as to be classified as a governmental agency, then even the presence or absence of State financial aid might be irrelevant in making a finding of State action. If the function does not fall within such a description, then mere addition of State money would not influence the conclusion.

1. In America, corporations or associations, private in character, but dealing with public rights, have already been held subject to constitutional standards. Political parties, for example, even though they are not statutory organisations, and are in form private clubs, are within this category. So also are labour unions on which statutes confer the right of collective bargaining…. 

2. Institutions engaged in matters of high public

interest or performing public functions are by virtue

of the nature of the function performed government

agencies35. Activities which are too fundamental to

the society are by definition too important not to be 

considered government function. This demands the

delineation of a theory which requires Government to

provide all persons with all fundamentals of life and

the determinations of aspects which are fundamental. The State today has an affirmative duty of seeing that all essentials of life are made available to all persons. The task of the State today is to make possible the achievement of a good life both by removing obstacles in the path of such achievements and in assisting individual in realising his ideal of self-perfection. ….

4. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489 this Court held that while a corporation may be created by astatute or incorporated under a law such as the Companies Act, 1956, or the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the question that often arises is as to when does the corporation become an instrumentality or agency of the Government and what are the tests to determine whether a corporation is or is not such an instrumentality or agency. While holding that there is no cut and dried formula that can provide an answer, this Court referred to American decisions in Evans

1. Newton 382 US 296 15 L.Ed.-2nd 373, Ch 614 =

1963 1 All. E.R. 590 and New York v. United States

326 US 572 to declare that if the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of the State.

This Court said:

“16. There is also another factor which may be

regarded as having a bearing on this issue and it is

whether the operation of the corporation is an

important public function. It has been held in the

United States in a number of cases that the concept

of private action must yield to a concept of State

action where public functions are being performed.

Vide Arthur S. Miller: “The Constitutional Law of the

‘Security State’”. It was pointed out by Douglas, J.,

in Evans v. Newton that “when private individuals or

groups are endowed by the State with powers or

functions governmental in nature, they become

agencies or instrumentalities of the State”. Of

course, with the growth of the welfare State, it is

very difficult to define what functions are

governmental and what are not, because, as pointed

out by Villmer, L.J., in Pfizer v. Ministry of Health

there has been since mid-Victorian times, “a

revolution in political thought and a totally different

conception prevails today as to what is and what is

not within the functions of Government”. Douglas, J.,

also observed to the same effect in New York v.

United States: “A State’s project is as much a

legitimate governmental activity whether it is

traditional, or akin to private enterprise, or

conducted for profit.” Cf. Helvering v. Gerhardt14. A

State may deem it as essential to its economy that it

own and operate a railroad, a mill, or an irrigation

system as it does to own and operate bridges, street

lights, or a sewage disposal plant. What might have

been viewed in an earlier day as an improvident or

even dangerous extension of State activities may

today be deemed indispensable. It may be noted

that besides the so-called traditional functions, the

modern State operates a multitude of public

enterprises and discharges a host of other public

functions. If the functions of the corporation are of

public importance and closely related to 

governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor

in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or

agency of Government. This is precisely what was

pointed out by Mathew, J., in Sukhdev v. Bhagatram

where the learned Judge said that “institutions

engaged in matters of high public interest or

performing public functions are by virtue of the

nature of the functions performed government

agencies. Activities which are too fundamental to the

society are by definition too important not to be

considered government functions”.

(emphasis supplied)

5. In Ajay Hasia and ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi

and ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722, this Court noted the constitutional philosophy of a democratic socialistic republic requiring the government to undertake a multitude of socioeconomic operations, and the practical advantages of functioning through the legal device of a corporation for a myriad of commercial and economic activities. But any such contrivance of carrying on such activities cannot, declared this Court, exonerate the government of its basic obligation to respect the fundamental rights of the citizens for otherwise it would be the easiest thing for any government to assign to a plurality of corporations almost every State business and thereby cheat the people of this country of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. The Court went on to enunciate certain tests applicable for determining whether an entity is an “instrumentality or the agency of the State”, an expression that does not figure in Article 12 of the Constitution but which would constitute an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution.

6. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 111 a seven Judge Bench of this Court was examining whether Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was a State within the meaning of Articles 12 and 13(2) of the Constitution. The Court decided by a majority of 5:2 that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia’s case (supra) were not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any of them it must be considered to be a ‘State’. The question in each individual case, declared this Court, would be whether on facts the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive to make any such body State within the  meaning of Article 12. Mere regulatory control whether under statute or otherwise would not be sufficient. Overruling an earlier decision of this Court in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 485, this Court held that Council of Scientific and Industrial Research even when registered as Society was ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12.

7. In Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 741, this Court had an occasion to consider the role and the nature of functions being discharged by the BCCI. This Court held that the Boards control over the sport of cricket was deep and pervasive and that it exercised enormous public functions, which made it obligatory for the Board to follow the doctrine of ‘fairness and good faith’. This Court said: “80. The Board is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. It enjoys a monopoly status as regards regulation of the sport of cricket in terms of its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. It controls the sport of cricket and lays down the law therefor. It inter alia enjoys benefits by way of tax exemption and right to use stadia at nominal annual rent. It earns a huge revenue not only by selling tickets to viewers but also selling right to exhibit films live on TV and broadcasting the same. Ordinarily, its full members are the State associations except Association of Indian Universities, Railway Sports Control Board and Services Sports Control Board. As a member of ICC, it represents the country in the international fora. It exercises enormous public functions. It has the authority to select players, umpires and officials to represent the country in the international fora. It exercises total control over the players, umpires and other officers. The Rules of the Board clearly demonstrate that without its recognition no competitive cricket can be hosted either within or outside the country. Its control over the sport of competitive cricket is deeply pervasive and complete.

1. In law, there cannot be any dispute that having regard to the enormity of power exercised by it, the Board is bound to follow the doctrine of “fairness” and “good faith” in all its activities. Having regard to the fact that it has to fulfil the hopes and aspirations of millions, it has a duty to act reasonably. It cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously. As the Board controls the profession of cricketers, its actions are required to be judged and viewed by higher standards.” (emphasis is ours)

8. The question whether the respondent-BCCI is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 fell directly for consideration of this Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 649. By a majority of 3:2 this Court ruled that respondent-BCCI was not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. This Court held that the Board was not created by any statute, nor was a part of the share capital held by the Government. There was practically no financial assistance given to the Board by the Government, and even when the Board did enjoy a monopoly status in the field of cricket such status was not State conferred or State protected. So also there is no deep and pervasive State control. The control, if any, is only regulatory in nature as applicable to other similar bodies. The control is not specifically exercised under any special statute applicable to the Board. All functions of the Board are not public functions nor are they closely related to governmental functions. The Board is not created by transfer of a government-owned corporation and was an autonomous body. Relying upon the tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas’s case (supra), this Court held that the Board was not financially, functionally or administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government so as to bring it within the expression ‘State’ appearing in Article 12 of the Constitution. Having said that this Court examined whether the Board was discharging public duties in the nature of State functions. Repelling the contention that the functions being discharged by the Board were public duties in the  nature of State functions which would make the Board a State within the meaning of Article 12 this Court observed: “29. It was then argued that the Board discharges public duties which are in the nature of State functions. Elaborating on this argument it was pointed out that the Board selects a team to represent India in international matches. The Board makes rules that govern the activities of the cricket players, umpires and other persons involved in the activities of cricket. These, according to the petitioner, are all in the nature of State functions and an entity which discharges such functions can only be an instrumentality of State, therefore, the Board falls within the definition of State for the purpose of Article 12. Assuming that the abovementioned functions of the Board do amount to public duties or State functions, the question for our consideration is:

would this be sufficient to hold the Board to be a

State for the purpose of Article 12? While considering

this aspect of the argument of the petitioner, it

should be borne in mind that the State/Union has

not chosen the Board to perform these duties nor

has it legally authorised the Board to carry out these

functions under any law or agreement. It has chosen

to leave the activities of cricket to be controlled by

private bodies out of such bodies’ own volition (selfarrogated).

In such circumstances when the actions

of the Board are not actions as an authorised

representative of the State, can it be said that the

Board is discharging State functions? The answer

should be no. In the absence of any authorisation, if

a private body chooses to discharge any such

function which is not prohibited by law then it would

be incorrect to hold that such action of the body

would make it an instrumentality of the State. The

Union of India has tried to make out a case that the

Board discharges these functions because of the de

facto recognition granted by it to the Board under

the guidelines framed by it, but the Board has denied

the same. In this regard we must hold that the Union

of India has failed to prove that there is any

recognition by the Union of India under the

guidelines framed by it, and that the Board is

discharging these functions on its own as an

autonomous body.”

9. Having said that this Court recognized the fact that the

Board was discharging some duties like the Selection of

Indian Cricket Team, controlling the activities of the players

which activities were akin to public duties or State functions

so that if there is any breach of a constitutional or statutory obligation or the rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to seek redress under the ordinary law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which is much wider than Article 32. This Court observed: “31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved in the game of cricket. These activities can be said to be akin to

public duties or State functions and if there is any

violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation

or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may

not have a relief by way of a petition under Article

2. But that does not mean that the violator of such

right would go scot-free merely because it or he is

not a State. Under the Indian jurisprudence there is

always a just remedy for the violation of a right of a

citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not

available, an aggrieved party can always seek a

remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way

of a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution, which is much wider than Article 32.”

(emphasis supplied) 

1. The majority view thus favours the view that BCCI is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 even when it is not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. The rationale underlying that view if we may say with utmost respect lies in the “nature of duties and functions” which the BCCI performs. It is common ground that the respondent-Board has a complete sway over the game of cricket in this country. It regulates and controls the game to the exclusion of all others. It formulates rules, regulations norms and standards covering all aspect of the game. It enjoys the power of choosing the members of the national team and the umpires. It exercises the power of disqualifying players which may at times put an end to the sporting career of a person. It spends crores of rupees on building and maintaining infrastructure like stadia, running of cricket academies and Supporting State Associations. It frames pension schemes and incurs expenditure on coaches, trainers etc. It sells broadcast and telecast rights and collects admission fee to venues where the matches are played. All these activities are undertaken with the tacit concurrence of the State Government and the Government of India who are not only fully aware but supportive of the activities of the Board. The State has not chosen to bring any law or taken any other step that would either eprive or dilute the Board’s monopoly in the field of cricket. On the contrary, the Government of India have allowed the Board to select the national team which is then recognized by all concerned and applauded by the entire nation including at times by the highest of the dignitaries when they win tournaments and bring laurels home. Those distinguishing themselves in the international arena are conferred highest civilian awards like the Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri apart from sporting awards instituted by the Government. Such is the passion for this game in this country that cricketers are seen as icons by youngsters, middle aged and the old alike. Any organization or entity that has 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 undertaking any private activity. The functions of the Board are clearly public functions, which, till such time the State intervenes to takeover the same, remain in the nature of public functions, no matter discharged by a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act. Suffice it to say that if the Government not only allows an autonomous/private body to discharge functions which it could in law takeover or regulate but even lends its assistance to such a nongovernment body to undertake such functions which by their very nature are public functions, it cannot be said that the functions are not public functions or that the entity discharging the same is not answerable on the standards generally applicable to judicial review of State action. Our answer to question No.1, therefore, is in the negative, qua, the first part and affirmative qua the second. BCCI may not be State under Article 12 of the Constitution but is certainly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Re: Question No.2:

1. The Probe Committee, on an interpretation of the

provisions of the relevant rules and the material placed

before it, recorded a specific finding that Gurunath 

Meiyappan was working/associated with the IPL as team

official of the Chennai Super Kings. The Committee further held that for the operation of the relevant Rules and Regulations it made no difference whether Gurunath

Meiyappan was the owner or simply a team official of CSK. That is because so long as Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official, which the Committee found he was, the consequences of his acts of betting would flow even when he was not the owner, or the perceived owner of the CSK. That Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official of CSK owned by India Cements Ltd. was not disputed by either India Cements Ltd. or any other party appearing before us. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, however, declined to commit himself to any stand on that aspect. When asked if his client was a team official of CSK, Mr. Luthra claimed the right to remain silent as his client was being prosecuted in a Court at Mumbai for betting. We will concede to Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan the right to silence in view of the pendency of the prosecution launched against him. That does not, however, prevent the Court from examining whether Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official for purposes of disciplinary action permissible under the relevant rules and regulations.

We may hasten to add that our examination of that issue

will be without prejudice to Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan’s right to claim that he was not a team official if at all the said question arises for consideration in the criminal trial pending against him, nor shall our opinion on the subject be taken as binding upon the criminal court where the question can be examined independently.

2. Having said that we find that the Probe Committee has correctly appreciated the facts as emerging from the documents and the depositions of witnesses recorded by it and rightly come to the conclusion that Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official of CSK. That is so especially when India Cements Ltd. who owns the team made a candid admission before us that Gurunath Meiyappan was indeed a team official within the meaning of that expression under the rules. We, therefore, see no real, much less compelling reason, for us to disagree or reverse the finding recorded by the Probe Committee on that aspect. 
3. The Probe Committee has on the basis of the material available to it further held that Gurunath Meiyappan was indulging in betting. That finding was not seriously assailed before us by Mr. Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on his behalf. Mr. Luthra’s concern was that since Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan was being prosecuted, any specific stance that he may take is likely to prejudice him at the trial in the criminal case. We have, however, made it clear and we do so again that any finding as to the involvement of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan in betting activities recorded by the Probe Committee or by this Court shall remain confined to the present proceedings which are addressing the limited question whether any administrative/disciplinary action needs to be taken against those accused of such activities. Having said so, we must make it clear that given the nature of the proceedings entrusted to the Probe Committee and the standard of proof applicable to the same, we see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Probe Committee that Gurunath Meiyappan was indeed indulging in betting. The material assembled in the course of the investigation by the Probe Committee provides a reasonably safe basis for holding that the accusations made against Gurunath Meiyappan stood established on a preponderance of probabilities. We are at any rate 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 a participating team. We are not, therefore, reappraising the material that has been assembled by the Probe Committee and relied upon to support its finding. The finding is by no means without basis or perverse to call for our interference with the same.

4. That brings us to the findings recorded against Mr. Raj Kundra, whose part ownership and accreditation as a team official of Rajasthan Royal was not disputed before us. In its report dated 9th February, 2014, the Probe Committee had referred to the statement of Mr. Umesh Goenka, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by a Delhi Court in which the said Mr. Goenka had stated that Mr. Raj Kundra used to indulge in betting in IPL matches through him. The Probe Committee opined that the allegations levelled against Mr.

Raj Kundra and his wife Ms. Shilpa Shetty required to be 40

investigated further. The Committee held that if the

allegations of betting were found proved against Mr. Raj

Kundra and his wife Shilpa Shetty the same would constitute

serious infraction of the IPL Operational Rules, the IPL AntiCorruption

Code and the IPL Code of Conduct for Players

and Team Official. The Committee observed:

“The Committee is thus of the view that if the

allegations of betting against Mr. Raj Kundra and Ms.

Shetty who are part of Rajasthan Royals, stand

proved the same would constitute a serious

infraction of Sections 2.2.1 and 2.14 of the IPL

Operational Rules for bringing the game in disrepute,

Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the IPL Anti

Corruption Code for acts of betting and Articles 2.4.4

of the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team

Officials, for bring disrepute to the game of cricket.”

5. A concurring report submitted by Mr. Nilay Dutta the

third member of the Probe Committee also expressed a

similar view when it said:

“There seems to have been an effort to cover up the

involvement of Mr. Raj Kundra in betting. In terms

of the regulations in force of the BCCI, even legal

betting is not permitted on the part of an owner of a

franchisee. No benefit would accrue to Mr. Raj

Kundra by an attempt to show that bets were placed

through legal betting methods in other countries.

There are materials on record which justify an

appropriate investigation to ascertain the

culpability of Mr. Raj Kundra and his wife Ms.

Shilpa Shetty in placing bets as owner of a

franchisee in IPL. Any such culpability on the 41

part of the Kundras would fasten liability on the

franchisee, Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited

and it would be incumbent to ascertain such

liability of the franchisee for purposes of

appropriate sanctions under the Operational

Rules and/or the Franchise Agreement. The

Committee understands that the suspension imposed

on Mr. Raj Kundra by the BCCI is still in force. The

BCCI must take a zero tolerance position as regards

corruption in cricket and any possible violation of the

BCCI Anti-Corruption Code and the Operational Rules

by any person. It goes without saying that Mr. Raj

Kundra and his wife Ms. Shilpa Shetty Kundra were

owners as per the Franchise Agreement and

accredited as such under the IPL Operational Rules.

They are Team officials within the meaning of the

said Rules. Being Team officials they are subject to

the Code of conduct for Players and Team Officials

prohibiting betting in course of IPL matches and

would face appropriate sanctions under the

Operational Rules. It would be in fitness of things

that pending final determination of the culpability of

the Kundras, they be kept suspended from

participating in any activity of the BCCI including the

IPL matches in view of the materials on record.”

6. This Court taking note of the observations made by the

Probe Committee not only directed further investigation into

the allegations against Mr. Raj Kundra but also provided

necessary support to the Probe Committee to do so

effectively. The Committee has on the basis of the said

further investigation and enquiry come to the conclusion

that Mr. Raj 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.42

7. The Committee has, while dealing with the case of Mr.

Raj Kundra, referred to as Individual No.11 in the said report

observed:

“Individual 11: This individual was in touch with the

bookies about betting and thus by not reporting

contact with the bookie has violated BCCI/IPL AntiCorruption

Code. The Committee also found that the

investigation against this individual was abruptly and

without reason stopped by the Rajasthan Police upon

receiving the case papers from Delhi Police. The

Committee found that a friend of individual 11 was a

known punter. The said punter has given a section

164 statement to the effect that he was placing bets

on behalf of individual 11. Individual 11 had

introduced him (punter) to another bookie who dealt

with larger stakes. Section 161 statement made by

another player confirmed that individual 11

introduced him to a bookie. Materials on record

indicate that individual 11 was placing bets or was at

the minimum standing guarantee for his punter

friend. These infractions also violate BCCI/IPL AntiCorruption

Code.”

 

8. Appearing for Mr. Raj Kundra, Mr. Shakher Naphade,

learned senior counsel, argued that the report submitted by

the Probe Committee could at best be taken as a preliminary

report. A proper enquiry into the allegations made against

Mr. Raj Kundra shall have to be separately conducted in

terms of the relevant rules and regulations. In support of

that contention he placed reliance upon the disciplinary

procedure prescribed under Rule 6.2.2 of the IPL Operational 43

Rules which postulates establishment of a “Disciplinary

Procedure Commission” to hear and adjudicate upon any

complaint alleging any breach or misconduct under the

regulations. In terms of Rule 6.2.2 the Commission has to

comprise three members of IPL Code of Behaviour

Committee selected by BCCI. The Commission is in terms of

Rule 6.2.4 empowered to investigate any breach of the

regulations or any Player Contract by any person subject to

the Operational Rules. Rule 6.3.1 prescribes the complaint

procedure which is according to the learned counsel

mandatory especially when Rule 6.3.8 requires the hearing

to be conducted in a fair manner and in consonance with the

principles of natural justice including the right to call and to

question and examine witnesses in person or by telephone

or video conference where necessary. Reliance was placed

upon Rule 6.3.19 to argue that standard of proof in support

of the complaint shall be whether “the Commission is

comfortably satisfied” bearing in mind the seriousness of the

allegations made regarding the ‘commission of the offence’

and that the standard of proof in all cases shall be

considered on a sliding scale from, at a minimum, a mere 44

balance of probability upto proof beyond a reasonable doubt

from the least serious to the most serious offences. It was

contended that the person found guilty is then entitled to file

an appeal before the Appeal Commission established under

Section 6.5.4 consisting upto three members to hear and

decide the appeal. This procedure, it was argued by Mr.

Naphade, could not be deviated from as the rules were

binding upon the parties concerned. Reliance in support was

placed on the decisions of this Court in T.P. Daver v.

Lodge Victoria No.363 S.C. Belgaum and Ors. (AIR

1963 SC 1144), Ambalal Sarabhai and Ors. v. Phiroz

1. Anita (AIR 1939 Bombay 35) and Lennox Arthur

Patrick O’ Reilly and Ors. v. Cyril Cuthbert Gittens

(AIR 1949 PC 313).

9. On behalf of Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Ltd. it was

argued by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel that

there was no direct allegation against the said company and

that the findings recorded by the Probe Committee that Mr.

Raj Kundra was the owner of Rajasthan Royals was not

wholly correct inasmuch as Raj Kundra and his family own 45

just about 11% equity in the holding company of respondent

No.4-Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Ltd. Having said that Mr.

Desai fairly conceded that Raj Kundra was duly accredited

and doubtless a ‘team official’ in terms of IPL Operational

Rules and also ‘Player Support Personnel’ and Participant in

terms of the IPL Anti-Corruption Code. Mr. Desai, however,

assailed the findings recorded by Justice Mudgal Committee

that Mr. Raj Kundra had indulged in betting in IPL matches

and argued that the report was vague and unsustainable

against Mr. Raj Kundra more so against Rajasthan Royals.

It was argued by him that Mr. Raj Kundra was never a part

of the management directly or indirectly and had never

participated in the management decisions including decisions

regarding the purchase of players or the strategy adopted by

the franchisee or its team. No notice was, according to Mr.

Desai, served upon respondent No.4-company although Mr.

Raj Kundra was summoned and examined by the Probe

Committee. According to the learned counsel, Justice Mudgal

Committee had only completed the first stage process of

investigation leaving the second stage ‘fact finding’ and the

third stage ‘adjudication’ issues open. It was contended that 46

even if Mr. Raj Kundra was held to be guilty of betting, the

question whether any punishment/sanctions could be

imposed upon a franchisee will have to be considered in the

totality of the circumstances having regard to the fact that

other promoters of the company that owns Rajasthan Royals

need not be punished for the misconduct of one of the

promoters holding only 11% equity. The question of

proportionality of the sanction/punishment shall also have to

be kept in mind argued Mr. Desai.

1. There is no gainsaying that the IPL Operational Rules

provide for what is described as ‘disciplinary and complaint

procedure‘ to be followed in regard to the complaints and/or

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.

The Commission is in terms of Rule 6.2.2 to comprise three

members of the IPL Code of Behaviour Committee to be

selected by the BCCI. It is also clear from Rules 6.3.1 to

6.3.21 that the Commission is required to follow a fair and 47

reasonable procedure consistent with the principles of

natural justice. In terms of Rule 6.3.19 standard of proof

can vary between balance of probability and proof beyond a

reasonable doubt depending upon the seriousness of the

allegations being examined by the Commission. What is

important is that the Commission is not in terms of

Regulation 6.3.20 bound by strict rules of evidence and that

facts relating to any offence can be established by any

reliable means including admissions. This procedure can

and indeed ought to be followed in cases where there is no

real or compelling justification for a departure. Two distinct

aspects all the same need be kept in mind in the case at

hand. The first is that even the BCCI had not adhered to the

prescribed procedure in the present case. Instead of

constituting a ‘Disciplinary Procedure Commission’

comprising three members of IPL Code of Behaviour

Committee, the BCCI had appointed a three-member

Committee comprising two former Judges of the High Court

of Madras with Mr. Jagdale as the third member. The

departure came ostensibly because of a public hue and cry

over betting by those owning the participating teams. The 48

situation was in that view extraordinary which called for an

extraordinary approach. A Committee comprising two

former Judges of the High Court of Madras was BCCI’s

response to the extraordinary situation with Mr. Jagdale as

the third member. 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 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 of Bombay in the writ petition filed by the

appellant-association. When the matter travelled to this

Court the seriousness of the allegations and the

ramifications involved led to the setting up of a High

Powered Probe Committee in place of the Disciplinary

Procedure Commission contemplated by the IPL Operational

Rules and Regulations. The whole purpose behind setting up

of the Probe Committee was to make the entire process of

investigation and enquiry into the allegations credible. The

Probe Committee headed by a former Chief Justice of the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana was never intended to 49

conduct a preliminary investigation as was suggested by M/s

Naphade and Desai. It was on the contrary understood by

all concerned to be a substitute for the Disciplinary

Procedure Commission under the Rules empowered to

examine the allegations and record findings. It is wholly

wrong to suggest that the report of such a High Powered

Probe Committee could be trivialised by treating it as a

preliminary investigation that could lead to no more than

initiation of proceedings before the Disciplinary Procedure

Commission envisaged by Rule 6.2.2 of the Rules mentioned

above.

1. 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 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. It was not as though

the finding of the Committee comprising two former Judges

of the Madras High Court was meant to be some kind of a

preliminary report which would require scrutiny or 50

examination by the Disciplinary Procedure Commission

before a clean chit was given to the individuals concerned.

If that be so, it is difficult to countenance the argument that

IPL Operational Rules had any further role to play in the

matter of an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the

persons concerned. It is equally difficult to appreciate how

the significance of the reports submitted by the Probe

Committee set up by this Court could be undermined simply

because the IPL Operational Rules provide for a Disciplinary

Procedure Commission with a particular composition. We

have in that view no hesitation in rejecting the contention

urged by M/s. Naphade and Desai that the procedure

prescribed by the IPL Operational Rules must be followed

despite all that has transpired till now or that the report

submitted by Justice Mudgal Committee was of no value

except that it could provided a basis for setting the

Disciplinary Procedure into motion. We need to remember

that the direction for appointment of a Probe Committee was

issued in exercise of appellate powers vested in this Court in

proceedings arising out of Article 226 of the Constitution as

also those vested in this Court under Article 142 thereof. We 51

also need to remember that 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 thereby discrediting the game and cheating the public

of their confidence in its purity. That being the object, it is

futile to set up the “disciplinary procedure” under the Rules

against the exercise of such plenary powers as are vested in

this Court under the constitutional provisions mentioned

above.

2. Having said that we must say and say it without any

hesitation that 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 finding which the

Probe Committee would record against those accused of

wrong doings. As seen earlier, Raj Kundra has been found

to be a team official of Rajasthan Royals by the Probe

Committee. Even according to the concessions made before 52

us by the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Raj Kundra

Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Ltd. he was a duly accredited team

official. Such being the position a notice was required to go

only to Mr. Raj Kundra for it was he alone who was alleged

to have indulged in betting. Mr. Desai’s contention that

since the Committee did not issue any notice to Jaipur IPL

Cricket Private Ltd. the owner of Rajasthan Royals the

finding recorded by the Probe Committee holding Mr. Raj

Kundra guilty of betting was vitiated does not appear to be

sound to us. Whether or not Mr. Raj Kundra’s misconduct

can and should result in loss of franchise granted to

Rajasthan Royals is a matter which may concern Jaipur IPL

cricket Private Ltd. but that is a different matter altogether.

The question immediately falling for our consideration is not

whether the franchise held by Mr. Desai’s client should be

cancelled. The question is whether Mr. Raj Kundra was

heard by the Justice Mudgal Committee, before holding him

guilty of betting. Our answer to that question is in the

affirmative. Admittedly, Mr. Raj Kundra was heard by the

Committee before concluding that he had indulged in

betting. Absence of any notice to anyone else was of little 53

consequence so long as the person concerned was duly

notified and afforded a fair opportunity. To that extent,

therefore, the grievance sought to be projected by the Jaipur

IPL Private Ltd. regarding absence of any notice need be

noticed only to be rejected.

3. There was no serious challenge to the findings recorded

by the Probe Committee on the merits of the findings

against Mr. Raj Kundra. Mr. Desai appearing for Jaipur IPL

Cricket Private Ltd., no doubt, contended that the finding

was based on certain assumptions, but we do not see any

merit in those contentions. Even otherwise strict rules of

evidence do not have any application to an enquiry like the

one entrusted to the Probe Committee or contemplated by

IPL Operational Rules. The essence of the rules applicable

even to the Disciplinary Commission is that it ought to adopt

a fair and reasonable procedure while enquiring into the

allegations of misconduct. Rule 6.3.19 of the Operational

Rules specifically states that the standard of proof in respect

of all complaints shall be “whether the Commission is

comfortably satisfied” with the allegations that the offence 54

has been committed. Such satisfaction could on a sliding

scale vary from a mere balance of probability upto proof

beyond a reasonable doubt. Rules of evidence are made

specifically inapplicable to the disciplinary proceedings in

terms of Rule 6.3.20 of the IPL Operational Rules. The Probe

Committee’s findings in our opinion comply with all the basic

requirements of fairness and reasonableness and, therefore,

call for no interference from us particularly when we are not

sitting in appeal over the said findings nor are we required

to substitute our own conclusion based on a reappraisal of

the material that was available before the Probe Committee

for those of the Committee.

4. In the light of what we have stated, the decision of this

Court in T.P. Daver’s case (supra) does not lend any

assistance to the respondents Raj Kundra or Jaipur IPL

Cricket Private Ltd. That was a case arising out of expulsion

of the appellant Mr. Daver as a member of Lodge Victoria

No.363 S.C. at Belgaum on allegations suggesting

commission of 12 masonic offences by him. The charges

levelled against the appellant were put to vote and the 55

members of the Masonic Lodge held each one of those

charges to have been proved. This culminated in the

passing of a resolution expelling the appellant from the

Lodge. An appeal against the said decision was dismissed

and so was a further appeal to the Grand Lodge of Scotland

who considered the sentence imposed on the appellant as

one of “suspension sine die”. It was in that background that

a suit was instituted by Mr. T.P. Daver in the Court of Civil

Judge, Senior Division for a declaration that the resolution

passed by the Victoria Lodge was illegal and void and that

he continued to be a member of the Lodge despite the said

resolution. The suit was contested by the defendants and

was eventually dismissed and so was an appeal before the

High Court of Mysore. In a further appeal this Court held

that while expelling a member, the conditions laid down in

the rules must be strictly complied with. Relying upon

Maclean v. Workers Union LR 1929 1 CHD 602, 623

and LAPO Reilly v. C.C. Gittens (AIR 1949 PC 313) this

Court held that in matters of this kind the decision of the

domestic tribunal cannot be questioned so long as the

Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction or acted 56

dishonestly or in bad faith. This Court summed up the

principles applicable in the following words:

”9. The following principles may be gathered from

the above discussion. (1) A member of a masonic

lodge is bound to abide by the rules of the lodge;

and if the rules provide for expulsion, he shall be

expelled only in the manner provided by the rules.

(2) The lodge is bound to act strictly according to the

rules whether a particular rule is mandatory or

directory falls to be decided in each case, having

regard to the well settled rules of construction in that

regard. (3) The jurisdiction of a civil court is rather

limited; it cannot obviously sit as a court of appeal

from decisions of such a body; it can set aside the

order of such a body, if the said body acts without

jurisdiction or does not act in good faith or acts in

violation of the principles of natural justice as

explained in the decisions cited supra.”

5. The present appeals do not arise from a suit as was the

position in T.P. Daver’s case (supra). More importantly, the

present appeals arise out of writ proceedings instituted in

public interest, a concept unknown when T.P. Daver’s case

(supra) was decided. At any rate, the domestic Tribunal

under the rules in the instant case was substituted by a

Tribunal constituted under the orders of the Court and with

the consent of the parties, to serve a larger public good viz.

to find out the veracity of the serious allegations of sporting 57

frauds like spot fixing, match fixing and betting by those

who were not only participants in the tournaments played

but also managing the affairs of the BCCI giving rise to

serious issues of conflict of interest adversely affecting the

game so popular in this country that any fraud as suggested

was bound to shake the confidence of the public in general

and those who love it in particular. Same is the position with

the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ambalal

Sarabhai and Ors. v. Phiris H. Antia (AIR 1939 Bom.

35). That was also a case where a member of a social club

was expelled from the club and the expulsion challenged in

the Court. A Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in

second appeal held that the club had not followed the

elementary principles of natural justice which gave enough

room to the Civil Court to interfere. The position in the case

at hand is in no way analogous to the fact situation of that

case. So long as Mudgal Committee has conducted the

proceedings in consonance with the principles of natural

justice, the Committee’s finding that Raj Kundra was a team

official of Rajasthan Royals and that he had indulged in

betting cannot be faulted. 58

6. Our answer to question No.2 is, therefore, in the

affirmative.

Re: Question No.3:

7. What possible action is permissible against Mr.

Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra and their teams and

Franchisees is what logically falls for our consideration in the

face of our answer to question No.2 above. There is no

gainsaying that the question shall have to be answered by

reference to the set of rules applicable. It is common ground

that there are different sets of rules and regulations

applicable to the fact situation at hand. It is also not in

dispute that even the franchise agreement between the

BCCI and the franchisees contain provisions that provide for

action in situations like the one at hand. We shall, for the

sake of clarity, answer the question by reference to each set

of rules separately.

(i) Permissible action in terms of the IPL

Operational Rules: 59

8. In Section I of the IPL Operational Rules are defined

different expressions used in the said Rules. Sections 2 and

4 stipulate obligations of the franchisees and team/players

while Section 6 thereof prescribes regulations and

disciplinary procedure which, inter alia, includes under

Section 6.1 sanctions that can be imposed for acts of

misconduct if any committed. The relevant provisions of IPL

Operational Rules effective from 15th March, 2013 are as

under:

“SECTION 1 – DEFINITIONS

1.1 In these Operational Rules (unless the context

requires otherwise) the following expressions shall have

the following meanings:

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Franchisee means an entity which has entered into a

Franchise Agreement with BCCI;

Franchise Agreement means an agreement between

BCCI and a third party (a Franchisee) under which such

Franchisee as agreed to filed a Team in the league and

pursuant to which such Franchisee enjoys certain rights

and has assumed certain obligations as set out therein and

as contemplated by these Operational Rules;

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Person means any individual, company, partnership or

any other entity of any kind. 60

Person subject to these Operational Rules means any

Franchisee, any Player, any Team Official and/or any

Match Official;

Player means a person who has been registered as a

player with BCCI;

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Regulations means, together, these Operational Rules

and the IPL Regulations;

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

SECTION 2 – FRANCHISEE AND TEAM/PLAYER

OBLIGATIONS-GENERAL

2.1 EFFECT OF OPERATIONAL RULES

Participation in or other involvement with the League is

deemed to constitute and to be an acceptance by each

person subject to these Operational Rules of an agreement

with and obligation owed to BCCI to be bound by and

subject to the Regulations, the Laws of Cricket, the terms

of each relevant Player Contract (insofar as such Player

Contract relates to any Persons subject to these

Operational Rules) and the jurisdiction of the BCCI in

connection therewith.

2.2 OBLIGAION TO COMPETE/OTHER MATCHES

2.2.1 Each Franchisee shall procure that its Team shall in

good faith compete to the best of its ability in the League

in general and in each Match in which its Team participates

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

2.14 CONDUCT

Each person subject to these Operational Rules shall not,

whether during a Match or otherwise, act or omit to act in

any way which would or might reasonably be anticipated to

have an adverse affect on the image and/or reputation of

such Person, any Team, any Player, any Team Official, the

BCCI, the League and/or the Game or which would

otherwise bring any of the foregoing into disrepute. 61

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

SECTION 4 – OTHER FRANCHISEE OBLIGAIONS

4.1 TEAM OFFICIALS

4.1.1 Each Franchisee shall ensure that each of its Team

Officials complies with the Regulations, including without

limitation, the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants

(and the attention of Franchises is drawn in particular to

Article 2 of the BCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants

for a list of the offences under that code). For the

avoidance of doubt, all of those persons who are

accredited as representing the Franchisee, whether

accredited for the League by BCCI either centrally or

locally, shall be deemed to be a Team Official for the

purpose of the Regulations.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

SECTION 6 – REGULATIONS AND DISCIPLINARY

PROCEDURE

6.1 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

6.1.1 The provisions of the regulations listed in paragraph

1.2 of this Section (being the IPL Regulations) together

with these Operational Rules shall apply to the League and

bind any person subject to these Operational Rules such

that they shall be bound to comply with such of them as

apply to each such Person.

6.1.2 The IPL Regulations referred to in paragraph 1.1

above are as follows;

(i) ……. ….

………………..

………………..

(viii) the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team

Officials;

………………..

……………….

(xiv) the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants; 62

(xv) the IPL Auction Briefing;

(xvi) BCCI’s Minimum Standards for Players and

Match Officials Areas at Matches.

(xvii) any other code as may be issued by BCCI from

time to time which shall be made available

either on the Official IPL website, the

Tournament Handbook or otherwise by BCCI

(and each Person subject to these Operational

Rules shall be obliged to ensure that it abides

by the latest version of the Regulations)

6.4 SANCTIONS

6.4.2 The Commission may, through BCCI, impose one or

more of the following sanctions or actions in relation to any

Offence;

(a) order compensation and/or an order that the

reasonable costs of the proceedings in relation to

any Complaint be borne by whichever Person has

been found to have committed the Offence or

apportioned in cases where two or more Persons

have committed an Offence;

(b) suspend a Player or other Person Subject to

these Operational Rules form playing or

otherwise being involved in Matches for a

specified period;

(c) suspend a Team or Franchisee from the

League;

(d) order the payment of money from a Person subject

to these Operational Rules either to BCCI or to

another Person including another Person subject to

these Operational Rules;

(e) order a declaration as to any finding of fact or

interpretation of the Regulations and/or any Player

Contract.

(f) order a deduction of points from a Team;

(g) order rectification of a contract or refuse the

registration of a Player by BCCI; 63

(h) order the specific performance of an act or matter,

or to do or stop doing or not to do something;

(i) Impose a financial penalty payable to BCCI or any

other Person

(j) order any other sanction action that the Commission

views as reasonable in the interest of justice.”

9. A careful reading of the Operational Rules extracted

above would show that every franchisee, player, team

official, and/or match official is subject to the said rules. In

terms of Rule 2.1 (supra) participation or other involvement

with the league is deemed to constitute an acceptance by

each person subject to these operational rules of an

agreement with an obligation owed to BCCI to be bound by

the regulations, the laws of cricket, the terms of the player

contract and the jurisdiction of the BCCI in connection

therewith. In terms of Rule 2.1.4 (supra) 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 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 or which

would otherwise bring any of the foregoing into disrepute. 64

More importantly, 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 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 (supra) 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 Operational Rules either to BCCI or to any other

person subject to those rules is also provided as one of the

permissible sanctions.

1. The upshot of the above discussion is that once Mr.

Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra are accepted as

team officials, their misconduct which has adversely affected

the image of the BCCI and the league as also the game and 65

brought each one of them to disrepute can result in

imposition of one or more of the sanctions stipulated under

Rule 6.4 (supra). It is noteworthy that those sanctions are

not limited to Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra alone but

may extend to suspension of the team or the franchisee

from the league also.

(ii) Permissible action under the Anti Corruption Code

for participants:

1. The BCCI claims to have adopted the Anti Corruption

Code for achieving, what it describes as certain

“fundamental sporting imperatives”. We may fruitfully

reproduce those fundamental sporting imperatives only to

highlight that the BCCI is, by the standards set by it, duty

bound to ensure that the game of cricket is played in

accordance with those sporting imperatives 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. The BCCI has, as

will appear from a plain reading of the imperatives set out in

the Rules, committed itself in no uncertain terms to

maintaining public confidence in the game. The BCCI stand 66

firmly committed to the following fundamental sporting

imperatives:

“1.1.1 All cricket matches are to be contested on a

level playing-field, with the outcome to be

determined solely by the respective merits of the

competing teams and to remain uncertain until the

cricket match is completed. This is the essential

characteristic that gives sport its unique appeal.

1.1.2 Public confidence in the authenticity and

integrity of the sporting contest is therefore vital. If

that confidence is undermined, then the very

essence of cricket will be shaken to the core. It is the

determination to protect that essence of cricket that

has led the Board of Control for Cricket in India to

adopt this Anti-Corruption Code.

1.1.3 Advancing technology and increasing

popularity have led to a substantial increase in the

amount, and the sophistication, of betting on cricket

matches. The development of new betting products,

including spread-betting and betting exchanges, as

well as internet and phone accounts that allow

people to place a bet at any time and from any

place, even after a cricket match has started, have

all increased the potential for the development of

corrupt betting practices. That, in turn, increases the

risk that attempts will be made to involve

participants in such practices. Even where that risk is

more theoretical than practical, its consequence is to

create a perception that the integrity of the sport is

under threat.

1.1.4 Furthermore, the nature of this type of

misconduct is such that it is carried out under cover

and in secret, thereby creating significant challenges

for the BCCI in the enforcement of rules of conduct.

As a consequence, the BCCI needs to be empowered

to seek information from and share information with

competent authorities and other relevant third

parties, and to require Participants to cooperate fully

with all investigations and requests for information.

1.1.5 The BCCI is committed to taking every step in

its power to prevent corrupt betting practices 67

undermining the integrity of the sport of cricket,

including any efforts to influence improperly the

outcome or any other aspect of any Match or Event.”

(emphasis supplied)

2. In Appendix 1 to the Anti-Corruption Code for

Participants are given definitions for different terms

appearing in the said Code including a definition for

expressions like, bet, Corrupt Conduct, domestic match,

event, ineligibility, inside information, match, participant,

player, player support personnel etc. The relevant part of

the Appendix dealt with the definition may also be extracted

for the sake of clarity:

“DEFINITIONS:

Anti-Corruption Code. This Anti-Corruption Code

promulgated by the BCCI on the Effective date.

Bet. Any wager, bet or other form of financial

speculation, and Betting is the carrying out of such

activity.

Corrupt Conduct. Any act or omission that would

amount to an offence under Article 2 of this AntiCorruption

Code or the equivalent provisions of anticorruption

rules of any other National Cricket

Federation or the ICC Anti-Corruption Code.

Domestic Match. Any ‘First-Class Match’, ‘List A

Limited Overs Match’ or ‘List A Twenty20 Match’, as

those terms are defined in the ICC Classification of

Official Cricket (as amended from time to time)

including all matches organized by the BCCI. 68

Event. Any competition, tournament, tour, event or

equivalent that involves one or more Matches.

Ineligibility. Means the Participant is barred for a

specified period of time from participation in the

sport of cricket, as set out more specifically in Article

6.5.

Inside Information. Any information relating to any

Match or Event that a Participant possesses by virtue

of his/her position within the sport. Such information

includes, but is not limited to, factual information

regarding the competitors in the Match or Event, the

conditions, tactical considerations or any other

aspect of the Match or Event, but does not include

such information that is already published or a

matter of public record, readily acquired by an

interested member of the public, or disclosed

according to the rules and regulations governing the

relevant Match or Event.

Match. A cricket match of any format and duration

in length in which two cricket teams compete against

each other.

Participant. Any Player, Player Support Personnel,

Umpire, Match Referee or Umpire Support Personnel.

Player. Any cricketer who is selected (or who has

been selected in the preceding twelve (12) months)

in any playing or touring team or squad that is

chosen to represent the BCCI or any of its affiliate

and associate bodies in any International Match or

Domestic Match.

Player Support Personnel. Any coach, trainer,

manager, selector, team official, doctor,

physiotherapist or any other person employed by,

representing or otherwise affiliated to a

playing/touring team or squad that is chosen to

represent a National Cricket Federation in any

Domestic Match or International Match or series of

such Matches.

Suspension. Means the Participant is temporarily

barred from participating in the sport of cricket

pending a decision on the allegation that he/she has 69

committed an offence under this Anti-Corruption

Code, as set out more specifically in Article 4.6.”

3. In terms of Article 2 appearing in the Code of AntiCorruption,

betting, misuse of inside information are some of

the actionable wrongs under the Code. Article 2 reads:

“ARTICLE 2 – OFFENCES UNDER THIS ANTICORRUPTION

CODE

2.2.1 CORRUPTION

2.2.1 Fixing or contriving in any way or otherwise

influencing improperly, or being a part to any effort

to fix or contrive in any way or otherwise influence

improperly, the result, progress, conduct or any

other aspect of any Match or Event.

2.1.2 Seeking, accepting, offering or agreeing to

accept any bribe or other Reward to fix or to contrive

in any bribe or other Reward to fix or to contrive in

any way or otherwise to influence improperly to

result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any

Match or Event.

2.1.4 Soliciting, including, enticing, instructing,

persuading, encouraging or facilitating (a) any

Participant to commit an offence under any of the

foregoing provisions of this Article 2.1 and/or (b) any

other person to do any act that would be an offence

if that person were a Participant

2.2.2 BETTING

2.2.1 Placing, accepting, laying or otherwise entering

into any Bet with any other party (whether

individual, company or otherwise) in relation to the

result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any

Match or Event.

2.2.2. Soliciting, including, enticing, instructing,

persuading, encouraging, facilitating or authorising

any other party to enter into a Bet for the direct or

indirect benefit of the Participant in relation to the

result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any

Match or Event. 70

2.2.3 MISUSE OF INSIDE INFORMATION:

2.3.1 Using, for Betting purposes, any inside

information

2.3.2 Disclosing inside information to any person

(with or without Reward) before or during any Match

or Event where the participant might reasonably be

expected to know that disclosure of such information

in such circumstances could be used in relation to

Betting.

NOTE: Any potential offence under this Article will be

considered on its own set of facts and the particular

circumstances surrounding any relevant disclosure.

For example, it may be an offence under this clause

to disclose inside information: (a) to journalists or

other members of the media; and/or (b) on social

networking websites where the Participant might

reasonably be expected to know that disclosure of

such information in such circumstances could be

used in relation to Betting. However, nothing in this

Article is intended to prohibit any such disclosure

made within a personal relationship (such as to a

member of the Participant’s family) where it is

reasonable for the Participant to expect that such

information can be disclosed in confidence and

without being subsequently used for Betting.

2.3.3. Soliciting, inducing, enticing persuading,

encouraging or facilitation (a) any Participant to

commit an offence under any of the foregoing

provisions of this Article 2.3 and/or (b) any other

person to do any act that would be an offence if that

person were a Participant.

2.4 GENERAL

2.4.1 Providing or receiving any gift, payment or

other benefit (whether of a monetary value or

otherwise) in circumstances that the Participant

might reasonably have expected could bring him/her

or the sport of cricket into disrepute.

NOTE: This Article is only intended to catch

‘disrepute’ that, when considered in all of the 71

relevant circumstances, relates (directly or

indirectly) to any of the underlying imperatives of

and conduct prohibited by this Anti-Corruption Code

(including as described in Article 1.1.)

Where any substantial gift, payment or other benefit

is received by any Participant from an unknown

person or organisation and/or for no apparent

reason, such Participant is advised to report such

receipt to the Designated Anti-Corruption Official (or

his/her designee). Where such Participant does not

make such a report, then that is likely to constitute

strong evidence of the commission of this offence.

2.4.2 Failing or refusing to disclose to the ACU BCCI

(without undue delay) full details of any approaches

or invitations received by the Participant to engage

in conduct that would amount to a breach of this

Anti-Corruption Code.

2.4.3 Failing or refusing to disclose to the ACU BCCI

(without undue delay) full details of any incident,

fact or matter that comes to the attention of a

Participant that may evidence an offence under this

Anti-Corruption Code by a third party, including

(without limitation) approaches or invitations that

have been received by any other party to engage in

conduct that would amount to a breach of this AntiCorruption

Code.

Note: All Participants shall have continuing obligation

to report any new incident, fact, or matter that may

evidence an offence under this Anti-Corruption Code

to the ACU-BCCI, even if the Participants’ prior

knowledge has already been reported.

2.4.4 Failing or refusing, without compelling

justification, to cooperate with any reasonable

investigation carried out by the Designated AntiCorruption

Official (or his/her designee) in relation to

possible offences under this Anti-Corruption Code,

including failure to provide any information and/or

documentation requested by the Designated AntiCorruption

Official (or his/her designee) (whether as

part of a formal Demand pursuant to Article 4.3 or

otherwise) that may be relevant to such

investigation. 72

2.5.1 Any attempt by a Participant, or any

agreement between (a) a Participant and (b0 any

other person, to act in a manner that would

culminate in the commission of an offence under this

Anti-Corruption Code, shall be treated as if an

offence had been committed, whether or not such

attempt or agreement in fact resulted in the

commission of such offence. However, there shall be

no offence under this Anti-Corruption Code where

the Participant renounces the attempt or agreement

prior to it being discovered by a third party not

involved in the attempt or agreement.

2.5.2 A participant who authorises, causes,

knowingly assists, encourages, aids, abets, covers up

or is otherwise complicit in any acts or omissions of

the type described in Article 2.1 – 2.4 committed by

his/her coach, trainer, manager, agent, family

member, guest or other affiliate or associate shall be

treated as having committed such acts or omissions

himself and shall be liable accordingly under this

Anti-Corruption Code.”

 

4. Sanctions prescribed under Article 6 of the Code

include suspension ranging from six months to a lifetime

depending upon the nature and gravity of the

offence/misconduct proved against the person concerned.

Article 6 runs as under:

“6.1 Where it is determined that an offence under

this Anti-Corruption Code has been committed, the

BCCI Disciplinary Committee will be required to

impose an appropriate sanction upon the Participant

from the range of permissible sanctions described in

Article 6.2. In order to determine the appropriate

sanction that is to be imposed in each case, the BCCI

Disciplinary Committee must first determine the

relative seriousness of the offence, including

identifying all relevant factors that it deems to: 73

6.1.1 aggravate the nature of the offence under this

Anti-Corruption Code, namely:

………….

6.1.1.4 where the offence substantially damaged (or

had the potential to damage substantially) the

commercial value and/or the public interest in the

relevant Match(es) or Event(s);

6.1.1.5 where the offence affected (or had the

potential to affect) the result of the relevant

Match(es) or Event(s);

6.1.1.6 where the welfare of a Participant or any

other person has been endangered as a result of the

offence;

6.1.1.7 where the offence involved more than one

Participant or other persons; and/or

6.1.1.8 any other aggravating factor(s) that the

BCCI Disciplinary Committee considers relevant and

appropriate.

6.1.2 mitigate the nature of the offence under the

Anti-Corruption Code, namely;

6.1.2.2 the Participant’s good previous disciplinary

record;

6.1.2.3 the young age and/or lack of experience of

the Participant;

6.1.2.4 where the Participant has cooperated with

the Designated Anti-Corruption Official (or his/her

designee) and any investigation or Demand carried

out by him/her;

6.1.2.5 where the offence did not substantially

damage (or have the potential to substantially

damage) the commercial value and/or the public

interest in the relevant Match(es) or Event(s);

6.1.2.6 where the offence did not affect (or have the

potential to affect) the result of the relevant

Match(es) or Event(s); 74

6.1.2.8 where the Participant has already suffered

penalties under other laws and/or regulations for the

same offence; and/or

6.1.2.9 any other mitigating factor(s) that the BCCI

Disciplinary Committee considers relevant and

appropriate.

6.2 Having considered all of the factors described in

Articles 6.1.1 and 6.1.2, the BCCI Disciplinary

Committee shall then determine, in accordance with

the following table, what the appropriate sanction(s)

should be:”

ANTI

CORRUPTION

CODE OFFENCE

RANGE OF

PERMISSIBLE

PERIOD OF

INELIGIBILITY

ADDITIONAL

DISCRETION TO

IMPOSE A FINE

Articles 2.1.1,

2.1.2, 2.1.3

and 2.1.4

(Corruption)

A minimum of five

(5) years and a

maximum of a

lifetime.

Articles 2.2.1,

2.2.2 and 2.2.3

(Betting)

A minimum of two

(2) years and a

maximum of five

(5) years.

Articles 2.3.1

and 2.3.3 (as it

relates to an

offence under

Article 2.3.1)

(Misuse of

inside

information)

A minimum of two

(2) years and a

maximum of five

(5) years.

Articles 2.3.2

and 2.3.3 (as it

relates to an

offence under

Article 2.3.2)

(Misuse of

inside

information)

A minimum of six

(6) months and a

maximum of five

(5) years.

Articles 2.4.1

and 2.4.2

(General) A

minimum of one (1)

year and a

maximum of five

(5) years).

Articles 2.4.3

and 2.4.4

(General) A

minimum of six (6)

months and a

maximum of two

(2) years.

AND (in all cases)

the Anti-Corruption

Tribunal shall have

the discretion to

impose a fine on

the Player or Player

Support Personnel

up to a maximum of

the value of any

Reward received by

the Player or Player

Support Personnel

directly or

indirectly, out of, or

in relation to, the

offence committed

under the AntiCorruption

Code. 75

5. It is manifest that 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 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. The expression ‘participant’ has been

defined to include any player, player support personnel,

Umpire, match Referee or Umpire Support Personnel. The

expression ‘player support personnel’ means any coach

trainer, manager, selector, team official, doctor etc. Mr.

Gurunath Meiyappan having been found to be a team official

of Chennai Super Kings is a “player support personnel”

hence a participant within the meaning of the AntiCorruption

Code. What is important is that apart from

Gurunath Meiyappan in his capacity as the team official if

any participant connected with CSK, authorises, causes,

knowingly assists, encourages, aids, abets, covers up or is 76

otherwise complicit in any act or omission he/she will also be

liable to action under the Anti-Corruption Code as if he/she

had himself/herself committed the act of misconduct.

6. In terms of Article 6 of the Code, upon consideration of

relevant factors the disciplinary committee of the BCCI is

empowered to impose an appropriate sanction upon the

delinquent having regard to the provisions of Article 6.2 and

the Table appearing thereunder. There is, therefore, no

manner of doubt that even 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 or commission relating to such activity.

(iii) Permissible action under the “Code of Conduct for

Players and the Team Official”:

7. 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. Articles 2.1 – 2.5 stipulate different levels of 77

offences which, if committed by the players or team officials,

can lead to imposition of sanctions against them. Article

2.4.4 is, however, a catch all provision to cover all types of

conduct which are not covered by specific offences set out in

the Code. It reads:

“2.4.4. Where the facts of the alleged incident are

not adequately or clearly covered by any of the

above offences, conduct that either; (a) is contrary

to the spirit of the game; or (b) brings the game into

disrepute.

Note: Article 2.4.4 is intended to be a ‘catch-all’

provision of cover all types of conduct of an

overwhelmingly serious nature that are not (and,

because of their nature, cannot be) adequately

covered by the specific offences set out elsewhere in

the Code of Conduct.

See guidance notes to Article 2.1.8 for examples of

conduct that may (depending upon the seriousness

and context of the breach) be prohibited under

Article 2.4.4.”

 

8. The team official who is found guilty of betting is

certainly acting against the spirit of the 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 78

between warning to suspension for a lifetime depending

upon the nature and the gravity of the offence committed.

9. We may, before parting with the discussion on this

question, refer to the Franchise Agreement executed

between BCCI on the one hand and the franchisees on the

other. Clause 11.3 of the said agreement reads:

“11.3 BCCI-IPL may terminate this Agreement with

immediate effect by written notice if:

(a) there is a Change of Control of the Franchise

(whether direct or indirect) and/or a Listing which in

each case does not occur strictly in accordance with

Clause 10;

(b) the Franchisee transfers any material part of its

business or assets to any other person other than in

accordance with Clause 10;

(c) the Franchisee, any Franchisee Group Company

and/or any Owner acts in any way which has a

material adverse effect upon the reputation or

standing of the League, BCCI-IPL, BCCI, the

Franchisee, the Team (or any other team in the

League) and/or the game of cricket.”

1. In terms of Clause 11.3 (c) (supra) if the franchisee,

any franchisee group company and/or any owner acts in a

manner that has a material adverse effect upon the

reputation or standing of the league, BCCI-IPL, BCCI, the

franchisee, the team or any other team and/or the game of

cricket, the BCCI-IPL is empowered to terminate the 79

agreement. The expression ‘owner’ has been defined in

Clause 1.1 as under:

“Owner shall mean any person who is the ultimate

Controller of the Franchisee;”

1. It is evident from the above provisions that the BCCIIPL

is in situations stipulated under Clause 11.3 competent

to direct the termination of the agreement. What would

constitute “material adverse effect” upon reputation or

standing of the league or BCCI-IPL, BCCI, the franchisee,

the team or game of cricket shall, however, depend upon

the facts and circumstances of each case. What cannot be

disputed is that the right to terminate the agreement is

available to the BCCI-IPL even in accordance with the

provisions of the franchise agreements themselves.

2. Question No.3 is answered accordingly.

Re: Question No.4:

3. The Probe Committee has recorded a specific finding

that the allegations of Match fixing, spot-fixing or betting

were not proved against Mr. Srinivasan in the course of the

enquiry. That finding was not seriously assailed before us, 80

by Mrs. Chidambaram, counsel for the appellant Association.

What was all the same strenuously argued by the learned

counsel was that the facts brought on record clearly

established that Mr. Srinivasan had attempted to cover up

the betting activities of his son-in-law who was a team

official of CSK. The attempted cover up, it was contended,

was a serious offence, which would call for action against

him and ICL who owned CSK. The argument was primarily

based on the following circumstances and inferences drawn

from facts proved or admitted:

(i) A three-Member Committee comprising two

former Judges of the High Court of Madras and Mr.

Jagdale was hastily set up to enquire into the

allegations of betting on 28th May, 2013 i.e. within

four days of the arrest of Gurunath Meiyappan.

The setting up of the Committee by Mr. Srinivasan

was aimed at giving Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan a

clean chit and along with him a clean chit to ICL

owned by Mr. Srinivasan and his family. 81

(ii) The Committee got reduced to two members only,

after resignation of Mr. Jagdale, but was asked to

continue the probe which was over within a day

resulting in an all clear report in favour of

Gurunath Meiyappan. The Committee opined that

there was no material laid before it to substantiate

the allegation that Gurunath Meiyappan was

betting. The appellant association alleges that the

BCCI then headed by Mr. Srinivasan did not do

anything to make good the charge of betting

leveled against Gurunath Meiyappan, not because

it could not do so but because it was not

interested in doing so. Any attempt to prove the

allegation would have led to Gurunath Meiyappan

being found guilty, which would in turn lead to

cancellation of the franchise held by ICL owned by

Srinivasan.

(iii) Before the Mudgal Probe Committee,

representatives of India Cements appeared to

assert that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan had no share

holding in ICL thereby withholding information 82

that Gurunath Meiyappan’s wife and Mr.

Srinivasan’s daughter held equity in ICL which

gave Gurunath Meiyappan a substantial clout over

the affairs of ICL cricketing or otherwise.

(iv) Mr. N. Srinivasan and M.S. Dhoni, in their

depositions before the Committee took the stand

that Gurunath Meiyappan had nothing to do with

the cricketing affairs of CSK and that he was only

a cricketing enthusiast. That stand was proved to

be factually wrong by the Probe Committee who

found that Gurunath Meiyappan was a team

official who had access to sensitive match

information not available to any ordinary

cricketing enthusiast.

4. The above circumstances, it was contended by Ms.

Chidambaram, highly probablised the cover up theory,

having regard to the fact that Mr. Srinivasan had a deep

rooted interest in such a cover up no matter as the President

of BCCI he was duty bound to do everything humanly

possible to discover the truth and allow the law to take its 83

own course. Inasmuch as the conflict between his own

interest as owner of the team that could be disenfranchised

and his duty to remain above board, and objective in his

capacity as President of the BCCI prevented the truth from

coming to light by what was according to Ms. Chidambaram

a device contrived to get a clean chit, Mr. Srinivasan had

also committed an act of misconduct that could call for

suitable punishment for him.

5. It is, in our opinion, difficult to hold that the

circumstances enumerated by Mrs. Chidambaram proved by

preponderance of probability the charge of cover up leveled

against Mr. Srinivasan. The appointment of a Probe

Committee comprising former Judges of the High Court

cannot be seen as an attempt to cover up nor can Mr.

Srinivasan be accused of withholding any incriminating

material from the Probe Committee especially when there is

nothing to show that Mr. Srinivasan was indeed in

possession of any incriminating material that was withheld

by him. Mr. Srinivasan had in fact stepped aside while the

probe was on to avoid any accusation being made against 84

him. Similarly, the allegation that an effort was made to

suppress facts before the Mudgal Committee or that Mr.

Gurunath was shown only as a cricket enthusiast whereas he

was a team official, may, at best, raise a suspicion against

Mr. Srinivasan but suspicion can hardly be taken as proof to

hold him guilty of the alleged cover up. We cannot,

therefore, with any amount of certainty, say that the charge

of attempted cover up leveled against Mr. Srinivasan stands

proved. Our answer to question No.4 is, therefore, in the

negative.

Re: Question No.5:

6. Amendment to Rule 6.2.4 was assailed before the High

Court of Bombay on three principal grounds. The first was

that the amendment was mala fide inasmuch as the whole

object underlying the same was to protect the grant of

Chennai Franchise to Mr. Srinivasan’s India Cements Ltd.

which was as on the date of the grant in clear breach of Rule

6.2.4 as it existed before its amendment. As treasurer of

BCCI Mr. Srinivasan was an administrator who could neither

acquire nor hold any commercial interest in any BCCI event 85

including IPL, Champions League & Twenty-20 tournaments

as all these tournaments are fundamentally BCCI events.

Suit filed by Mr. Muthiah had no doubt brought up the

question of conflict of interest, in breach of Rule 6.2.4 but

the challenge was sought to be neutralized by amending the

rule itself and taking the three events mentioned above out

of the mischief of Rule 6.2.4

7. The second limb of the challenge to the amendment

was that the same was brought hurriedly without any

supporting recommendation from any Committee without an

agenda item for deliberations of the BCCI and without a

proper notice to the members who were supposed to discuss

the same. The amendment was pushed through under the

residuary and omnibus “any other item” appearing in the

agenda even when it was an extremely important matter of

far reaching implications which changed a fundamental

imperative applicable to all the events organized by BCCI. In

substance, the second limb of the challenge was also

suggestive of the amendment having been brought about to

serve the personal interest of those administering the affairs 86

of BCCI rather than any ethically or morally correct

proposition to ensure purity of the game or to nurture the

confidence of those who are fond of it.

8. The third ground on which the amendment came under

challenge was that the same is opposed to public policy and

good conscience. The argument, it appears, was that

inasmuch as the amendment permitted in perpetuity a

conflict between administrator’s duty and his commercial

interest, it fell foul of the concept of fairness, transparency

and probity in the discharge of public functions by the BCCI

and its administrators.

9. The High Court of Bombay has, as seen earlier, repelled

the challenge and upheld the amendment in question by its

judgment and order impugned in Civil Appeal arising out of

SLP (Civil) No.34228 of 2014. We have, while dealing with

question No.1 above, held that BCCI is amenable to writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as it

discharges “Public Functions”. The natural corollary flowing

from that finding is that all actions which BCCI takes while

discharging such public functions are open to scrutiny by the 87

Courts in exercise of their powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution. It also implies that such actions shall when

under scrutiny be judged by the standards and on principles

that govern similar actions when taken by the State or its

instrumentalities. The approach which a Court exercising

powers of judicial review of administrative action adopts will

remain the same irrespective of whether the action under

review is taken by the State or its instrumentality or by any

non statutory non government organisation like the BCCI in

the case at hand. It follows that Rule 6.2.4 will be subject

to the same tests and standards as would apply to any

similar provision emanating from a statute or the general

executive power of the State.

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 events

conducted by the Board.”

1. The impugned amendment added the following words

at the end of the above Rule: 88

“excluding events like IPL or Champions

League Twenty 20.”

2. It is common ground that the validity of the impugned

amendment to Rule 6.2.4 shall have to be tested on a

threefold basis viz. (i) whether the amendment is made by

the authority competent to do so; (ii) whether the authority

competent to bring about an amendment has followed the

procedure prescribed for the same; and (iii) whether the

amendment falls foul of any statute or principle of law,

violation whereof cannot be countenanced.

3. Seen in the light of the Articles of Association, we find

no infirmity in the amendment to Rule 6.2.4 in so far as the

legislative competence (if we may use that expression) of

the authority that brought about the amendment is

concerned. It is nobody’s case that the amendment was

beyond the competence of the authority that made it. So

also, there is in our opinion no merit in the argument that

the amendment should fall because the same did not figure

as an item in the agenda for the meeting in which the same

was passed. The Contention that the amendment came as a 89

side wind on the basis of a report of a Committee that was

supposed to examine issues touching anti racism also does

not carry any conviction. It is true that the circumstances,

in which the amendment came about, may create a

suspicion as to the bona fides of the exercise but a mere

suspicion may not be enough to strike the same down. So

long as the forum where the matter was taken-up, discussed

and a resolution passed was competent to deal with the

subject, procedural deficiencies which do not affect the

competence of the authority do not matter much. We have,

therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the contention that the

amendment is bad because the same came up all too

suddenly for discussion, without any real research or other

work to support it and without adequate notice to the

members to think about and usefully contribute to the

deliberations.

4. That leaves us with the third facet of the question

which is not free from difficulty and must therefore be dealt

with more comprehensively. The amendment has not been

questioned on the ground that the same violates the Tamil 90

Nadu Registration of Societies Act under which BCCI stands

registered as a Society. It is also not challenged on the

ground that any other Statute regulating such societies is

breached. What is contended is that inasmuch as the

amendment permits commercial interest to be held by

administrators in the events organised by BCCI it violates a

fundamental tenet of law that no one can be a judge in his

own cause, recognized universally as an essential facet of

the principles of natural justice which must permeate every

action that BCCI takes in the discharge of its public

functions. That contention is not without merit and needs to

be carefully explored from different angles. But before we do

so we may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in A.K.

Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1969) 2 SCC

262 where a Constitution bench of this Court was examining

whether Principles of Natural Justice have any application to

purely administrative actions as distinguished from those

described as quasi judicial in nature. The question there

arose in the context of a selection process in which

Naqishbund who was a member of the Selection Committee

was himself a candidate alongwith others for induction into 91

the Indian Forest Service. The challenge was founded on

the plea that there was a conflict between the duty which

Naqishbund was required to perform as a member of the

selection Committee and his interest as a candidate for

selection. In defence of his role and the selection made by

the Committee it was argued that the Selection Committee

discharged Administrative functions to which the principles

of natural justice had no application. Repelling the

contention this Court held that horizons of natural justice

were constantly expanding, and that the principles apply

only in areas not covered by any law validly made. The

Court observed:

“20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to

secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent

miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only

in areas not covered by any law validly made. In

other words they do not supplant the law of the land

but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has

undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In

the past it was thought that it included just two rules

namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case

(Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no

decision shall be given against a party without

affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram

partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was

envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries

must be held in good faith, without bias and not

arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of

years many more subsidiary rules came to be added

to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it 92

was the opinion of the courts that unless the

authority concerned was required by the law under

which it functioned to act judicially there was no

room for the application of the rules of natural

justice. The validity of that limitation is now

questioned. If the purpose of the rules of natural

justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails

to see why those rules should be made inapplicable

to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy

to draw the line that demarcates administrative

enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries

which were considered administrative at one time

are now being considered as quasi-judicial in

character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of

both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative

enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative

enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a

decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry. As observed by

this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of

Kerala10 the rules of natural justice are not

embodied rules. What particular rule of natural

justice should apply to a given case must depend to

a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that

case, the framework of the law under which the

enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or

body of persons appointed for that purpose.

Whenever a complaint is made before a court that

some principle of natural justice had been

contravened the court has to decide whether the

observance of that rule was necessary for a just

decision on the facts of that case.”

5. Dealing with the conflict of duty and interest and the

test applicable when examining whether a given process is

vitiated by bias, this Court made the following telling

observations:

“15. It is unfortunate that Naqishbund was

appointed as one of the members of the selection

board. It is true that ordinarily the Chief Conservator

of Forests in a State should be considered as the

most appropriate person to be in the selection board. 93

He must be expected to know his officers thoroughly,

their weaknesses as well as their strength. His

opinion as regards their suitability for selection to

the All-India Service is entitled to great weight. But

then under the circumstances it was improper to

have included Naqishbund as a member of the

selection board. He was one of the persons to be

considered for selection. It is against all canons of

justice to make a man judge in his own cause. It is

true that he did not participate in the deliberations of

the committee when his name was considered. But

then the very fact that he was a member of the

selection board must have had its own impact on the

decision of the selection board. Further admittedly

he participated in the deliberations of the selection

board when the claims of his rivals particularly that

of Basu was considered. He was also party to the

preparation of the list of selected candidates in order

of preference. At every stage of his participation in

the deliberations of the selection board there was a

conflict between his interest and duty. Under those

circumstances it is difficult to believe that he could

have been impartial. The real question is not

whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the

state of mind of a person. Therefore what we have to

see is whether there is reasonable ground for

believing that he was likely to have been biased. We

agree with the learned Attorney General that a mere

suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be a

reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the

question of bias we have to take into consideration

human probabilities and ordinary course of human

conduct. It was in the interest of Naqishbund to keep

out his rivals in order to secure his position from

further challenge. Naturally he was also interested in

safeguarding his position while preparing the list of

selected candidates.”

 (emphasis supplied)

6. The significance of the principles of natural justice visa-vis

Article 14 of the Constitution is no longer res integra.

The principles have been held to be a part and parcel of the

guarantee contained in Article 14. We may in this connection 94

briefly refer to the decision of this Court in Union of India

and ors. etc. v. Tulsiram Patel etc. (1985) 3 SCC 398

where this Court declared that Principles of natural justice

have now come to be recognized as being a part of the

constitutional guarantee contained in Article 14 of the

Constitution. The Court observed:

“Violation of a rule of natural justice results in

arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination and

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. Article 14, however, is not

the sole repository of the principles of natural

justice, nor those principles are the creation of

Article 14. Article 14 is not their begetter but their

constitutional guardian.”

7. The above position was reiterated in Central Inland

Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. v.

Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr. etc. (1986) 3 SCC 156.

This Court observed as under:

“95. The principles of natural justice have thus come

to be recognized as being a part of the guarantee

contained in Article 14 because of the new and

dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the

concept of equality which is the subject-matter of

that article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus:

violation of a rule of 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 95

violation of Article 14. Article 14, however, is not the

sole repository of the principles of natural justice.

What it does is to guarantee that any law or State

action violating them will be struck down. The

principles of natural justice, however, apply not only

to legislation and State action but also where any

tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within

the definition of State in Article 12, is charged with

the duty of deciding a matter. In such a case, the

principles of natural justice require that it must

decide such matter fairly and impartially.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. There is no gainsaying that in the ever expanding

horizons of the principles of natural justice, it makes little or

practically no difference whether the action or the nature of

the proceedings being tested are administrative or quasijudicial.

The principles apply to either more or less

uniformly. It follows that even if the duties and functions

which BCCI discharges are administrative and not quasijudicial,

the principles will find their application with the

same rigor as may be applicable to quasi-judicial functions.

Does the amendment to Rule 6.2.4, in any way violate the

principles of natural justice or the essence thereof is the real

question.

9. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the

amendment authorizes, contrary to what is demanded by 96

the principles of natural justice, the creation and

continuance of a conflict of interest situation. That is what is

not permissible on a true and proper application of the

principles of natural justice. The contention is that but for

the amendment, Rule 6.2.4 would debar any conflict of

interest, by forbidding administrators of BCCI from having

any commercial interest in the events organized by the

BCCI. That is according to the appellant an ideal situation

which gets distorted and corrupted by the amendment

permitting such commercial interests disregarding the fact

that creation or continuance of such interests will, bring

about a serious conflict between the duties of administrators

on the one hand and their personal/commercial interest on

the other.

1. The respondents, on the contrary, argue that conflict of

interest is a reality of life and exists in any number of

situations some of them at times unavoidable. But, what is

important is that the Rules should provide for resolving the

conflict. Relying upon, rules applicable to conflict of interests

in different sporting bodies, it was contended by Mr. Sibal 97

that unless, the conflict of interests is so palpable, that there

is no room for any resolution; the rule cannot and should

not be struck down simply because it may give rise to a

conflict of interest at any time in future.

1. There is no gainsaid that a conflict of interest situation

may arise even when the rules or the norms do not

specifically authorize acts or transactions that may lead to

such a conflict. The scheme of the rules, may itself suggest

that a conflict of interest is not welcome. And yet, such a

conflict may at times arise, in which event, the rules can

provide for a mechanism, to resolve the conflict as is the

position in some of the rules to which our attention was

drawn in regard to some other sports. The question,

however, is whether a rule can by a positive and enabling

provision permit acts and transactions which would by their

very nature bring about a conflict of interest. Our answer is

in the negative. It is one thing to say that conflict may arise

even when rules do not specifically permit such a conflict

situation and a totally different thing to permit acts which

will per se bring about such a conflict. The case at hand falls 98

in the latter category. Rule 6.2.4 after amendment, permits

creation of commercial interests in the events organized 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. The respondents

may argue as indeed they have done, that commercial

interest held by India Cements Ltd. in the IPL and other

events do not constitute a conflict per se so as to fall foul of

the principle that such conflicts are impermissible on the

touchstone of fairness, reasonableness and probity in the

discharge of public functions by the BCCI. But that

contention is specious and deserves notice only to be

rejected. Three real life situations that have arisen in the

past, qua India Cements owned by Mr. Srinivasan’s family

and captained by him, simply demonstrate how such

conflicts have arisen between the duty which Mr. 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 BCCI organizes. The first instance arose when 99

BCCI awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.10.40 crores to

Chennai Super Kings – on account of the cancellation of the

Champions League Tournament 2008. It is not in dispute

that Mr. Srinivasan was one of those who contributed to the

taking of the decision to award that amount towards

compensation to his own team. True it is that a similar

amount was awarded to Rajasthan Royals the other finalist

also, but that does not, mean that to the extent Mr.

Srinivasan, participated and deliberated in the proceedings

leading to the award of a hefty amount of compensation, he

was not privy to a self-serving decision that benefited India

Cements Ltd. a company promoted by Mr. Srinivasan. The

fact that some others also participated in the decisionmaking

process as members of IPL Governing Council does

not cure the legal flaw arising out of the benefactor also

being the beneficiary of the decision. The situation is

analogous to Naqishbund participating in the selection

proceedings even when he was himself a candidate for

selection as in Kraipak’s case (supra). As a matter of fact,

Naqishbund had recused himself from the proceedings when

his own case was taken up for consideration. But this Court 100

remained unimpressed and took the view that any such

recusal did not make any material difference, as bias in such

like situations operates in a subtle manner. In the case at

hand Mr. Srinivasan had not even done that much no matter

it would have made little or no difference even if he had

done so. At any rate, the test is not whether bias was

actually at work when the decision was taken. It is the

reasonable likelihood of bias that determines whether the

action can be faulted. A reasonable likelihood of bias is what

can be seen even in the case at hand when the decision to

award compensation was taken by the governing council of

IPL with Mr. Srinivasan, present and participating as a

member.

2. 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 other. Mr. Sibal, no doubt, argued

that this amount was returned by ICL subsequently, but

such return, does not improve the matters. The decision to

award an amount higher than the one awarded earlier

appears to have led to public criticism raising the pitch 101

further for Mr. Srinivasan’s removal from the BCCI on the

principles of conflict of interest. Return of the amount

because of a public outcry may no doubt mean that Mr.

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 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.

3. The third instance where Mr. Srinivasan’s commercial

interest came in direct conflict with his duty as President of

BCCI is when allegations of betting were leveled against his

son-in-law Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan. Even ignoring for a

moment the argument that Mr. Srinivasan had made a

deliberate attempt to cover up the betting racket that came

to light, facts now prove that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan was

involved in betting in IPL matches even when he was a team

official of CSK. We have, while dealing with question No.3,

held that the misconduct of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj 102

Kundra can result in award of punishment not only to

the said two persons but even to the franchisees

themselves. That being so, a clear conflict of interest

has arisen between what is Mr. Srinivasan’s duty as

President of BCCI on the one hand and his interest as

father-in-law of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and owner of

team CSK on the other. The argument that Mr.

Srinivasan owns only 0.14% equity in ICL is of no avail

if not totally misleading when we find from the record that

his family directly and/or indirectly holds 29.23% of the

equity in the ICL with Mr. Srinivasan his wife and daughter

as directors on the Board of that company.

4. It is in the light of the above unnecessary to delve

further to discover conflict of interest although, the appellant

has relied upon several other matters in which there is a

potential conflict between his duty as President of the BCCI

and his commercial interest. Suffice it to say that

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 103

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 which perpetuates such a conflict cannot be

countenanced and shall have to be struck down.

5. 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” But for doing so we need to first examine

what is meant by “Public Policy” as it is understood in legal

parlance. The expression has been used in Section 23 of the

Indian Contract Act, 1872 and in Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and a host of 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, meaning or explanation. That has not, however,

deterred jurists and Courts from explaining the expression

from very early times. Mathew J. speaking for the Court in 104

Murlidhar Aggarwal and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

(1974) 2 SCC 472 referred to Winfield’s definition in Public

Policy in English Common Law 42 Harvard Law Review 76 to

declare that:

“31. Public policy does not remain static in any given

community. It may vary from generation to

generation and even in the same generation. Public

policy would be almost useless if it were to remain in

fixed moulds for all time.”

6. The Court then grappled with the problem of

ascertaining public policy if the same is variable and

depends on the welfare of the community and observed:

“32. If it is variable, if it depends on the welfare of

the community at any given time, how are the courts

to ascertain it? The Judges are more to be trusted as

interpreters of the law than as expounders of public

policy. However, there is no alternative under our

system but to vest this power with Judges. The

difficulty of discovering what public policy is at any

given moment certainly does not absolve the Judges

from the duty of doing so. In conducting an enquiry,

as already stated Judges are not hidebound by

precedent. The Judges must look beyond the narrow

field of past precedents, though this still leaves open

the question, in which direction they must cast their

gaze. The Judges are to base their decisions on the

opinions of men of the world, as distinguished from

opinions based on legal learning. In other words, the

Judges will have to look beyond the jurisprudence

and that in so doing, they must consult not their own

personal standards or predilections but those of the

dominant opinion at a given moment, or what has

been termed customary morality. The Judges must 105

consider the social consequences of the rule

propounded, especially in the light of the factual

evidence available as to its probable results. Of

course, it is not to be expected that men of the world

are to be subpoenaed as expert witnesses in the trial

of every action raising a question of public policy. It

is not open to the Judges to make a sort of

referendum or hear evidence or conduct an inquiry

as to the prevailing moral concept. Such an extended

extra-judicial enquiry is wholly outside the tradition

of courts where the tendency is to “trust the Judge

to be a typical representative of his day and

generation”. Our law relies, on the implied insight of

the Judge on such matters. It is the Judges

themselves, assisted by the bar, who here represent

the highest common factor of public sentiment and

intelligence. No doubt, there is no assurance that

Judges will interpret the mores of their day more

wisely and truly than other men. But this is beside

the point. The point is rather that this power must be

lodged somewhere and under our Constitution and

laws, it has been lodged in the Judges and if they

have to fulfil their function as Judges, it could hardly

be lodged elsewhere.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation

(supra) this Court was also considering the import of the

expression ‘Public Policy’ in the context of the service

conditions of an employee empowering the employer to

terminate his service at his sweet will upon service of three

months notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof.

Explaining the dynamic nature of the concept of public policy

this Court observed: 106

“Public policy, however, is not the policy of a

particular government. It connotes some matter

which concerns the public good and the public

interest. The concept of what is for the public good

or in the public interest or what would be injurious or

harmful to the public good or the public interest has

varied from time to time. As new concepts take the

place of old, transactions which were once

considered against public policy are now being

upheld by the courts and similarly where there has

been a well-recognized head of public policy, the

courts have not shirked from extending it to new

transactions and changed circumstances and have at

times not even flinched from inventing a new head of

public policy.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

It is thus clear that the principles governing public

policy must be and are capable, on proper occasion,

of expansion or modification. Practices which were

considered perfectly normal at one time have today

become obnoxious and oppressive to public

conscience. If there is no head of public policy which

covers a case, then the court must in consonance

with public conscience and in keeping with public

good and public interest declare such practice to be

opposed to public policy. Above all, in deciding any

case which may not be covered by authority our

courts have before them the beacon light of the

Preamble to the Constitution. Lacking precedent, the

court can always be guided by that light and the

principles underlying the Fundamental Rights and the

Directive Principles enshrined in our Constitution.

8. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Oil &

Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.

(2003) 5 SCC 705, where this Court was considering the

meaning and import of the expression “Public Policy of India”

as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award. Speaking 107

for the Court M.B. Shah, J. held that the expression ‘Public

Policy of India’ appearing in the Act aforementioned must be

given a liberal meaning for otherwise resolution of disputes

by resort to Arbitration proceedings will get frustrated

because patently illegal awards would remain immune to

Courts interference. This Court declared that what was

against public good and public interest cannot be held to be

consistent with Public Policy. The following passage aptly

summed up the approach to be adopted in the matter:

“31. Therefore, in our view, the phrase “public policy

of India” used in Section 34 in context is required to

be given a wider meaning. It can be stated that the

concept of public policy connotes some matter which

concerns public good and the public interest. What is

for public good or in public interest or what would be

injurious or harmful to the public good or public

interest has varied from time to time. However, the

award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation

of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public

interest. Such award/judgment/decision is likely to

adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence,

in our view in addition to narrower meaning given to

the term “public policy” in Renusagar case it is

required to be held that the award could be set aside

if it is patently illegal. The result would be — award

could be set aside if it is contrary to:

(a) fundamental policy of Indian law; or

(b) the interest of India; or

(c) justice or morality, or

(d) in addition, if it is patently illegal.

Illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the

illegality is of trivial nature it cannot be held that 108

award is against the public policy. Award could also

be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it

shocks the conscience of the court. Such award is

opposed to public policy and is required to be

adjudged void.”

9. In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v.

Western GECO International Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 263,

this Court was examining the meaning of ‘Fundamental

Policy of Indian Law’ an expression used by this Court in

Saw Pipes’ case (supra). Extending the frontiers of what

will constitute ‘Public Policy of India’ this Court observed:

“35. What then would constitute the “fundamental

policy of Indian law” is the question. The decision in

ONGC does not elaborate that aspect. Even so, the

expression must, in our opinion, include all such

fundamental principles as provide a basis for

administration of justice and enforcement of law in

this country. Without meaning to exhaustively

enumerate the purport of the expression

“fundamental policy of Indian law”, we may refer to

three distinct and fundamental juristic principles that

must necessarily be understood as a part and parcel

of the fundamental policy of Indian law. The first and

foremost is the principle that in every determination

whether by a court or other authority that affects the

rights of a citizen or leads to any civil consequences,

the court or authority concerned is bound to adopt

what is in legal parlance called a “judicial approach”

in the matter. The duty to adopt a judicial approach

arises from the very nature of the power exercised

by the court or the authority does not have to be

separately or additionally enjoined upon the fora

concerned. What must be remembered is that the

importance of a judicial approach in judicial and

quasi-judicial determination lies in the fact that so

long as the court, tribunal or the authority exercising 109

powers that affect the rights or obligations of the

parties before them shows fidelity to judicial

approach, they cannot act in an arbitrary, capricious

or whimsical manner. Judicial approach ensures that

the authority acts bona fide and deals with the

subject in a fair, reasonable and objective manner

and that its decision is not actuated by any

extraneous consideration. Judicial approach in that

sense acts as a check against flaws and faults that

can render the decision of a court, tribunal or

authority vulnerable to challenge.

8. Equally important and indeed fundamental to the

policy of Indian law is the principle that a court and

so also a quasi-judicial authority must, while

determining the rights and obligations of parties

before it, do so in accordance with the principles of

natural justice. Besides the celebrated audi alteram

partem rule one of the facets of the principles of

natural justice is that the court/authority deciding

the matter must apply its mind to the attendant facts

and circumstances while taking a view one way or

the other. Non-application of mind is a defect that is

fatal to any adjudication. Application of mind is best

demonstrated by disclosure of the mind and

disclosure of mind is best done by recording reasons

in support of the decision which the court or

authority is taking. The requirement that an

adjudicatory authority must apply its mind is, in that

view, so deeply embedded in our jurisprudence that

it can be described as a fundamental policy of Indian

law.

9. No less important is the principle now recognised

as a salutary juristic fundamental in administrative

law that a decision which is perverse or so irrational

that no reasonable person would have arrived at the

same will not be sustained in a court of law.

Perversity or irrationality of decisions is tested on the

touchstone of Wednesbury principle of

reasonableness. Decisions that fall short of the

standards of reasonableness are open to challenge in

a court of law often in writ jurisdiction of the superior

courts but no less in statutory processes wherever

the same are available.” 110

1. To sum up: Public Policy is not a static concept. It

varies with times and from generation to generation. But

what is in public good and public interest cannot be opposed

to public policy and vice-versa. Fundamental Policy of Law

would also constitute a facet of public policy. This would

imply that all those principles of law that ensure justice, fair

play and bring transparency and objectivity and promote

probity in the discharge of public functions would also

constitute public policy. Conversely any deviation,

abrogation, frustration or negation of the salutary principles

of justice, fairness, good conscience, equity and objectivity

will be opposed to public policy. It follows that any rule,

contract or arrangement 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 nongovernmental

body will be opposed to public policy. Applied

to the case at hand Rule 6.2.4 to the extent, it permits,

protects and even perpetuates situations where the

Administrators can have commercial interests in breach or

conflict with the duty they owe to the BCCI or to the people 111

at large must be held to be against public policy, hence,

illegal. That is particularly so when BCCI has in the Anti

Corruption Code adopted by it recognized public confidence

in the authenticity and integrity of the sporting contest as a

fundamental imperative. It has accepted and, in our opinion

rightly so, that all cricket matches must be contested on a

level playing field with the outcome to be determined solely

by the respective merits of the competing teams. The Anti

Corruption Code of the BCCI does not mince words in

accepting the stark reality that if the confidence of the public

in the purity of the game is undermined then the very

essence of the game of cricket shall be shaken. The BCCI

has in no uncertain terms declared its resolve to protect the

fundamental imperatives constituting the essence of the

game of cricket and its determination to take every step in

its power to prevent corrupt betting practices undermining

the integrity of the sport including any effort to influence the

outcome of any match. Unfortunately, however, the

amendment to Rule 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 112

people in the authenticity, 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 law.

1. Before we wind up the discussion on the validity of Rule

6.2.4 and the vice of conflict of interest it permits after the

impugned amendment, we may in brief deal with the

submissions which Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for

the respondent Mr. Srinivasan urged before us. It was

contended by Mr. Sibal that IPL was conceived as a

commercial enterprise, structured in a manner that it

eliminated all possibility of conflict of interest. That is

because all decisions, financial or otherwise relating to the

IPL, are already known to all the participants leaving no

discretion with any official of the BCCI. The commercial

interest of an administrator in the IPL can never be in

conflict with the administrator’s duty in the BCCI argued Mr. 113

Sibal. That apart, every franchise is treated equally since

the contractual obligation with the BCCI is identical for each

franchise leaving no possibility of differential treatment by

BCCI. It was also argued that IPL is Distinct from other

matches/events conducted by the BCCI so that there is no

question of any conflict of interest between the role of a

person as an administrator of BCCI and an owner of an IPL

franchise. The following distinguishing features were in this

regard relied upon:

(i) IPL is not a tournament to test the

players’ ability to play representative

cricket since the record of each player in

the IPL is not considered for National

Selections. IPL is only a platform

provided to cricketers – both Indian and

International, to make a living from the

sport outside of playing representative

cricket, which is not as remunerative.

(ii) The IPL teams revolve around a

business structure and each team is

formed pursuant to winning a franchise

for a particular stadium in a commercial

tender floated by BCCI, whereas in

representative cricket it is the BCCI, a

non-for-profit society which manages

the teams selected by it.

(iii) The franchise in the IPL has a

contractual arrangement by which the

franchise fee is paid to the BCCI and in 114

return the franchisee gets a share of the

broadcast and sponsorship revenue. In

representative cricket, the income from

sponsors and broadcast fee goes

exclusively to the BCCI.

(iv) IPL was started as a commercial venture

by BCCI to bring more money into the

game from the private sector for being

ploughed back into the sport in the form

of infrastructure, development of the

game, players’ benefit and ground

facilities in all parts of the country.

Income from broadcast rights of the

National Team is incidental to the

membership of the BCCI to ICC that

permits the BCCI to field the India Team

against other teams of other Member

Nations.

(v) In IPL, the Selection Committees of

BCCI for various age groups have no

role to play. Players from all over the

world through their respective National

Boards enroll for the auction. Players

cannot pick or choose a franchisee to

play once enlisted for the auction. The

player intake by a franchisee is

dependent on Open Market principles.

In the IPL, the players are allowed to be

traded between franchisees within the

rules of permitted salary caps as

detailed in the Players Regulations.

(vi) Entertainment of the public hitherto not

interested in the sport, i.e. bringing in

newer fans to the game has been a goal

of the IPL whereas representative

cricket is the more serious version and a

pathway to the National Selection.” 115

2. There is no gainsaying that Mr. Sibal was right in

contending that in certain areas the BCCI or anyone of its

administrators/office bearers does not have any discretion

except to go by what is prescribed as a uniform pattern for

all the franchisees. But, to say that there is no possibility of

any conflict of interest arising in IPL format between an

administrator’s duty and the commercial interest if any held

by him is not in our opinion correct. The three live

situations to which we have adverted in the earlier part of

this order in which a conflict has arisen in the case at hand

only prove that conflict of interest is not only possible but

ominously looming large if an administrator also owns a

competing team. So also the contention that, IPL being a

commercial venture of BCCI and a platform for Indian and

International cricketers to make a living from the sport, is

neither here nor there. No one has found fault with IPL as a

format, nor is there any challenge to the wisdom of BCCI in

introducing this format for the benefit of cricketers or for its

own benefit. The question is whether the BCCI can afford to

see the game lose its credibility in the eyes of those who

watch it, by allowing an impression to gather ground that 116

what goes on in the name of the game is no more than a

farce because of sporting frauds like betting, match fixing

and the like. Can the BCCI live with the idea of the game

being seen only as a means to cheat the unsuspecting and

gullible spectators watching the proceedings whether in the

stadium or on the television with the passion one rarely sees

in any other sporting enterprise. BCCI’s commercial plans for

its own benefit and the benefit of the players are bound to

blow up in smoke, if the people who watch and support the

game were to lose interest or be indifferent because, they

get to know that some business interests have hijacked the

game for their own ends or that the game is no longer the

game they know or love because of frauds on and off the

field. There is no manner of doubt whatsoever that the 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 fundamental imperatives

considered sacrosanct and inviolable. All told whatever be

the format of the game and whatever be the commercial 117

angles to it, the game is what it is, only if it is played in its

pristine form free from any sporting fraud. And it is because

of that fundamental imperative that these proceedings

assume such importance. The fundamental imperatives, to

which BCCI is avowedly committed in the Anti Corruption

Code, cannot be diluted leave alone neglected or negated.

3. In K. Murugon v. Fencing Association of India,

Jabalpur and ors. (1991) 2 SCC 412 this Court held that

sports in India have assumed a great importance for the

community while international sports has assumed greater

importance over the past few decades. Despite this,

however, several sports bodies in this country have got

involved in group fights leading to litigation in the process

losing sight of the objectives which such societies and

bodies are meant to serve and achieve. This Court therefore

emphasized the need for setting right the working of the

societies rather than adjudicating upon the individual’s right

to office by reference to the provisions of law relating to

meetings, injunctions, etc. The following passage from the 118

Murugon’s decision (supra) is a timely reminder of the

need of the hour:

“12. This does not appear to us to be a matter

where individual rights in terms of the rules and

regulations of the Society should engage our

attention. Sports in modern times has been

considered to be a matter of great importance to the

community. International sports has assumed

greater importance and has been in the focus for

over a few decades. In some of the recent Olympic

games the performance of small States has indeed

been excellent and laudable while the performance of

a great country like India with world’s second highest

population has been miserable. It is unfortunate that

the highest body in charge of monitoring all aspects

of such sports has got involved in group fight leading

to litigation and the objectives of the Society have

been lost sight of. The representation of India in the

IOA has been in jeopardy. The grooming of amateurs

has been thrown to the winds and the responsibility

placed on the Society has not been responded. This,

therefore, does not appear to us to be a situation

where rights to office will have to be worked out by

referring to the provisions of the law relating to

meetings, injunction and rights appurtenant to

elective offices. What seems to be of paramount

importance is that healthy conditions must be

restored as early as possible into the working of the

Society and a fresh election has to be held as that

seems to be the only way to get out of the malady.”

 (emphasis supplied)

4. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in N.

Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose and Ors. (2009) 7 SCC 1,

where this Court was examining the question relating to

qualities required for appointment of a candidate as 119

President of the State Consumer Commission. The

petitioner was in that case found unfit to be appointed as a

permanent Judge of the High Court. The question was

whether his being unsuitable for appointment as a

permanent Judge could be a reason for denying to him an

appointment as President of the State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission. Dealing with the question of a

possible conflict between public interest on the one hand

and private interest on the other this Court in para 93 of the

decision observed:

“93. The superior courts must take into

consideration as to what is good for the judiciary as

an institution and not for the Judge himself. An act of

balancing between public interest and private

interest must be made. Thus, institution as also

public interest must be uppermost in the mind of the

court. When such factors are to be taken into

consideration, the court may not insist upon a proof.

It would not delve deep into the allegations. The

court must bear in mind the limitations in arriving at

a finding in regard to lack of integrity against the

person concerned.”

5. The decision in Kannadasan case (supra) was relied

upon by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Centre for

PIL and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. (2011) 4

SCC 1 where this Court dealt with the importance of 120

institutional integrity and declared that an institution is more

important than an individual. The following passage from

the decision is apposite:

“45. ….. Thus, we are concerned with the institution

and its integrity including institutional competence

and functioning and not the desirability of the

candidate alone who is going to be the Central

Vigilance Commissioner, though personal integrity is

an important quality. It is the independence and

impartiality of the institution like the CVC which has

to be maintained and preserved in the larger interest

of the rule of law (see Vineet Narai (1988) 1 SCC

226).”

6. 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, wrong doing or

corrupt practices which ought to be weeded out of the

system. Conflict of interest is one area which appears to

have led to the current confusion and serious misgivings in 121

the public mind as to the manner in which BCCI is managing

its affairs.

7. It was lastly argued by Mr. Sundaram, learned senior

counsel for BCCI that if administrators were held to be

disentitled to have any commercial interest in BCCI events

including IPL, the same may adversely affect not only the

IPL format but certain outstanding sports persons who by

reason of their proficiency in cricket and its affairs are often

engaged as coaches, mentors, commentators or on similar

other positions may also be rendered disqualified to get such

engagements. This would mean that the teams will lose the

advantage of having these outstanding sports persons on

their side while the sport persons will lose the opportunity to

earn a livelihood only because they hold or have at an

earlier point of time held an administrative office in BCCI.

Such an interpretation or disqualification would not be in the

interest of the game or those who have distinguished

themselves in the same, argued Mr. Sundaram.

8. The expression ‘Administrator’ appearing in

Rule 6.2.4 has been defined to mean and include present 122

and past Presidents, Honorary Secretaries, Honorary

Treasures, Honorary Joint Secretaries of the BCCI.

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 could

have any commercial interest in any BCCI event but for the

impugned amendment to Rule 6.2.4. What is important,

however, is that the challenge in the present proceedings

arises in the context of Mr. Srinivasan, President of BCCI

having commercial interest in the IPL by reason of the

company promoted by him owning Chennai Super Kings. 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 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 hundreds of crores.

The franchise can grow as a ‘brand’ and in terms of franchise 123

agreement executed between franchisee and the BCCI be

sold for a price subject to the conditions stipulated in the

agreement. There is, therefore, no manner of doubt that the

investment made by India Cements Ltd. is a business

investment no matter in a sporting activity. To the extent

the business investment has come from India Cements Ltd.

promoted by Mr. Srinivisan and his family, India Cements

and everyone connected with it as shareholders acquire a

business/commercial interest in the IPL events organised by

BCCI. The association of India Cements Ltd. and Mr.

Srinivasan with IPL is being faulted on account of this

commercial interest which India Cements Ltd. has acquired

for itself. Whether or not players engaged as mentors,

coaches, managers or commentators in connection with the

events for remuneration payable to them will also be

ineligible for any such assignment does not directly fall for

our consideration in these proceedings. That apart, it may

well be argued that there is a difference between

commercial interest referred to in Rule 6.2.4 and

‘professional engagement’ of a player on account of his

proficiency in the game. It may be logically contended that 124

the engagement of a player even though made on a

remuneration remains a professional engagement because

of his professional skill in the game of cricket and not

because he has made any investment like India Cements

Ltd. has done in acquiring a franchise or in any other form.

Be that as it may, we do not consider it necessary or even

proper to authoritatively pronounce upon the question

whether such engagement of players, as are mentioned

above, would fall foul of the prohibition contained in Rule

6.2.4 as it stood before amendment. The issue may be

examined as and when the same arises directly for

consideration. All that we need say at this stage is that

whether or not a player who is an ‘administrator’ by reason

of an existing or earlier assignment held by him can acquire

or hold a commercial interest in any BCCI event, will depend

upon the nature of the interest that such person has

acquired and whether the same is purely professional or has

any commercial element to it. Beyond that we do not

propose to say anything at this stage. Question No. 5 is

accordingly answered in the affirmative and Amendment to

Rule 6.2.4 permitting Administrators of BCCI to acquire or 125

hold commercial interests in BCCI like IPL, champions

league and T-20 held to be bad for the reasons we have set

out in the foregoing paras.

Re: Question No.6:

9. Mr. 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 operations,

sponsorships activities, television production, estimations of

costs, negotiation of contracts, administration duties, travel

and transport and other related functions. According to the

allegation levelled against him, he was in constant touch

with Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh evidenced by nearly 350 calls

made thereto between them during the IPL.

1. The investigating team headed by Mr. B.B. Mishra

summed up its conclusion about Mr. Sundar Raman’s

involvement in its report dated 28th August 2014 in which it

stated:

“The allegation emanated from a statement of

Bindra. The verification so far indicates that Vindoo 126

Dara Singh and Sundar Raman knew each other, but

in the years 2012 and 2013, they have hardly made

calls to each other. The CDR of Vindoo Dara Singh

for the period 01.01.2013 to 20.5.2013 which is

available doesn’t indicate any call made/received by

him to/from Sunder Raman. Virk will have to be

requested to join investigation and part with the

information available with him.”

1. In its final report dated on 1.11.2014 the Probe

Committee recorded a finding that Mr. Sundar Raman,

described as Individual 12 in that report, had known a

bookie and had contacted him at eight different times in the

IPL. The Committee said:

“This individual knew a contact of a bookie and had

contacted him eight times in one season. This

individual admitted knowing the contact of the

bookies but however claimed to be unaware of his

connection with betting activities. This individual also

accepted that he had received information about

individual 1 and individual 11 taking part in betting

activities but was informed by ICC-ACSU chief that

this was not actionable information. This individual

also accepted that this information was not conveyed

to any other individual.”

2. In the objection filed before this Court, Mr. Sundar

Raman has, inter alia, argued that the Probe Committee has

not recorded any specific finding that he had knowledge of

Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh being a bookie. It is also asserted by

Mr. Sundar Raman that he knew of Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh 127

only as a celebrity who used to frequently attend IPL

matches and events with other celebrities. Mr. Sundar

Raman has specifically denied having any knowledge about

the activities of Vindoo Dara Singh and his contacts. Based

on certain call records produced by Mr. Sundar Raman, it is

claimed that there were only 5 calls between the two of

them during a period of ten months and that making or

receiving such calls was a part of his job as the Chief

Operating Officer of IPL.

3. The other allegation against Mr. Sundar Raman was

that even though he had received information that a number

of owners/team officials were involved in betting yet he had

taken no action in the matter. When asked about the

correctness of this accusation, Mr. Sundar Raman appears to

have argued that it was Mr. V.P. Singh who had verbally

informed him about reports alleging that a number of

owners/team officials were involved in betting on IPL

matches but Mr. V.P. Singh is also alleged to have told Mr.

Sundar Raman that the information was not actionable. 128

4. From a reading of the report submitted by the

investigating team, we find that the team intended to

request Mr. Virk to join the investigation and part with the

information with him regarding Mr. Sundar Raman’s

proximity to Vindoo Dara Singh, the alleged bookie/contact

of the bookie. The Probe Committee has stopped short of

recording a specific finding regarding the complicity of Mr.

Sundar Raman in the betting racket, nor is there any explicit

justification provided by the report for the finding that 8 and

not 350 calls were made between Mr. Sundar Raman and

Vindoo Dara Singh. Suffice it to say that the report

submitted by the investigating team and the Probe

Committee do not indict Mr. Sundar Raman in clear words.

The observations made regarding his role and conduct

simply give 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. 129

5. The question then is whether Mr. Sundar Raman can be

declared to be completely innocent or does his conduct and

activities call for any other probe or investigation. Mr.

Sundar Raman was, and continues to be the Chief Operating

Officer of IPL. He has held and continues to hold a very

important position in the entire system. On his own showing

he was dealing with practically all aspects of organization of

the game, including facilitating whenever necessary the

appearance and participation of celebrities and organizing

tickets, accreditation cards and such other matters. He was,

therefore, 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. We are, therefore, not inclined

to let the allegations made against Mr. Sundar Raman go

un-probed, even if it means a further investigation by the

investigating team provided to the probe committee or by

any other means. Truth about the allegations, made against

Mr. Sundar 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 130

administrators in several proceedings before different courts

can be given a quietus. Having said that we propose to

issue appropriate directions regarding further investigation

and probe into the activities and conduct of Mr. Sundar

Raman on conditions that we will stipulate separately in the

later part of this judgment.

Re: Question No.7:

6. We have while answering Questions No.2 and 3

held Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra to be

guilty of betting. We have also while answering those

questions held that the misconduct against these two

individuals is actionable as per the relevant rules to which

we have referred in detail. Not only that, we have held that

action under the rules can also be taken against the

franchisees concerned. We have noticed that that the

quantum of sanction/punishment can vary depending upon

the gravity of the misconduct of the persons committing the

same.

7. One of the issues that would fall for determination

in the light of these findings would be whether we should 131

impose a suitable punishment ourselves or leave it to the

BCCI to do the needful. Having given our anxious

consideration to that aspect we are of the view that neither

of these two courses would be appropriate. We say so

because the power to punish for misconduct vests in the

BCCI. We do not consider it proper to clutch at the

jurisdiction of BCCI to impose a suitable punishment. At the

same time we do not think that in a matter like this the

award of a suitable punishment to those liable for such

punishment can be left to the BCCI. The trajectory of the

present litigation, and the important issues it has raised as

also the profile of the individuals who have been indicted,

would, in our opinion, demand that the award of punishment

for misconduct is left to an independent committee to

exercise that power for and on the behalf of BCCI. This

would not only remove any apprehension of bias and/or

influence one way or the other but also make the entire

process objective and transparent especially when we

propose to constitute a committee comprising outstanding

judicial minds of impeccable honesty. 132

8. The other aspect, which needs attention, is the

need for a probe into activities of Mr. Sundar Raman. We

are of the view that, once we appoint a Committee to

determine and award punishment, we can instead of

referring the matter back to Mudgal Committee, request the

proposed new Committee to examine the role played by Mr.

Sundar Raman, if necessary, with the help of the

investigating team constituted by us earlier.

9. The proposed Committee can also, in our opinion,

be requested to examine and make suitable

recommendations on the following aspects:

(i) Amendments considered necessary to the

memorandum of association of the BCCI and the

prevalent rules and regulations for streamlining

the conduct of elections to different posts/officers

in the BCCI including conditions of eligibility and

disqualifications, if any, for candidates wanting to

contest the election for such posts including the

office of the president of the BCCI. 133

(ii) Amendments to the memorandum of association,

and rules and regulation considered necessary to

provide a mechanism for resolving conflict of

interest should such a conflict arise despite Rule

6.2.4 prohibiting creation or holding of any

commercial interest by the administrators, with

particular reference to persons, who by virtue of

their proficiency in the game of Cricket, were to

necessarily play some role as Coaches, Managers,

Commentators etc.

(iii) Amendment, if any, to the Memorandum of

Association and the Rules and Regulations of BCCI

to carry out the recommendations of the Probe

Committee headed by Justice Mudgal, subject to

such recommendations being found acceptable by

the newly appointed Committee.

(iv) Any other recommendation with or without

suitable amendment of the relevant Rules and

Regulations, which the Committee may consider 134

necessary to make with a view to preventing

sporting frauds, conflict of interests, streamlining

the working of BCCI to make it more responsive to

the expectations of the public at large and to bring

transparency in practices and procedures followed

by BCCI.

1. In the result we pass the following order:

(I) Amendment to Rule 6.2.4 whereby the words

‘excluding events like IPL or Champions League

Twenty 20’, were added to the said rule is hereby

declared void and ineffective. The judgment and

order of the High Court of Bombay in PIL No.107

of 2013 is resultantly set aside and the said writ

petition allowed to the extent indicated above.

(II) The quantum of punishment to be imposed on Mr.

Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra as also

their respective franchisees/teams/owners of the

teams shall be determined by a Committee

comprising the following: 135

1. i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, former Chief

Justice of India – Chairman.

1. ii) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, former Judge,

Supreme Court of India – Member.

iii) Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, former

Judge, Supreme Court of India – Member.

 The Committee shall, before taking a final view on

the quantum of punishment to be awarded, issue

notice to all those likely to be affected and provide

to them a hearing in the matter. The order passed

by the Committee shall be final and binding upon

BCCI and the parties concerned subject to the

right of the aggrieved party seeking redress in

appropriate judicial proceedings in accordance

with law.

(III) The three-member Committee constituted in

terms of Para (II) above, shall also examine the

role of Mr. Sundar Raman with or without further

investigation, into his activities, and if found

guilty, impose a suitable punishment upon him on

behalf of BCCI. 136

Investigating team constituted by this Court under

Shri B.B. Mishra shall for that purpose be available

to the newly constituted Committee to carry out

all such investigations as may be considered

necessary, with all such powers as were vested in

it in terms of our order dated 16th May, 2014.

(IV) The three-member Committee is also requested to

examine and make suitable recommendations to

the BCCI for such reforms in its practices and

procedures and such amendments in the

Memorandum of Association, Rules and

Regulations as may be considered necessary and

proper on matters set out by us in Para number

109 of this order.

(V) The constitution of the Committee or its

deliberations shall not affect the ensuing elections

which the BCCI shall hold within six weeks from

the date of this order in accordance with the

prevalent rules and regulations subject to the

condition that no one who has any commercial 137

interest in the BCCI events (including Mr. N.

Srinivasan) shall be eligible for contesting the

elections for any post whatsoever. We make it

clear that the disqualification for contesting

elections applicable to those who are holding any

commercial interest in BCCI events shall hold good

and continue till such time the person concerned

holds such commercial interest or till the

Committee considers and awards suitable

punishment to those liable for the same;

whichever is later.

(VI) The Committee shall be free to fix their fees which

shall be paid by the BCCI who shall, in addition,

bear all incidental expenses such as travel, hotel,

transport and secretarial services, necessary for

the Committee to conclude its proceedings. The

fees will be paid by the BCCI to the members at

such intervals and in such manner as the

Committee may decide. The venue of the

proceedings shall be at the discretion of the

Committee. 138

1. We hope and trust that the Committee concludes

the proceedings as early as possible, but as far as possible

within a period of six months.

2. These appeals shall stand disposed of in the above

terms with the direction that the relevant record received

from Justice Mudgal Committee shall be forwarded to the

Chairman of the newly appointed Committee without any

delay.

3. We place on record our deep appreciation for the

work done by the Probe Committee headed by Justice Mukul

Mudgal and all those who assisted the Committee in the

Probe and its early completion.

4. All miscellaneous applications shall also stand

disposed of in the above terms.

 ……………………………………………………J.

 (T.S. THAKUR)

…………………… ……………………………….J.

 (FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA)

New Delhi;

January 22, 2015