2015 Supreme(SC) 61

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
Board of Control for Cricket in India – Appellant
Versus
Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4235 OF 2014
With
Cricket Association of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4236 OF 2014
WITH
Cricket Association of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.34228 of 2014)
Decided On : 22-01-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
BCCI is not ‘State’ within meaning of Article 12 – Even then looking to nature of its functions and duties, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.
Finding that Gurunath Meiyappan is a team official will have no effect on criminal proceeding and the concerned court will have its independent conclusions.
Misconduct of a team official can result in imposition of one or more of the sanctions stipulated under Rule 6.4.
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 void and ineffective.
Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra are guilty of betting. Misconduct against them is actionable.
Action can also be taken against the franchisees concerned. Quantum of sanction/punishment can vary depending upon the gravity of the misconduct of the persons committing the same.
Principles of natural justice apply to judicial, quasi judicial or administrative actions alike.
It is one thing that conflict may arise even when rules do not specifically permit such a conflict situation; but, to permit acts which will per se bring about such a conflict is totally a different thing.
Amendment of rule 6.2.4 permitting an administrator to have commercial interest in any event organized by BCCI is liable to be struck down.
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.
Conflict of interest damaging integrity of institution for gains of individual is against public policy, hence, illegal.
Question whether engagement of players in IPL would fall foul of the prohibition contained in Rule 6.2.4 as it stood before amendment left open.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 r/w Article 12 – Amenability to writ jurisdiction – All entities answering definition of State under Article 12 are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Besides, the entities discharging important public functions also become amenable to writ jurisdiction – Thus BCCI discharging several important public functions is amenable to writ jurisdiction. (Para 20)

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 12 – BCCI is not ‘State’ within meaning of Article 12 – Even then looking to nature of its functions and duties, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32. (Para 29, 30)

       (1975) 1 SCC 421; (1979) 3 SCC 489; (1981) 1 SCC 722; (2002) 5 SCC 111; (2005) 4 SCC 741; (2005) 4 SCC 649 – Relied upon

       326 U.S. 501: 19 L. ed. 265; 382 US 296 15 L.Ed.-2nd 373, Ch 614 = 1963 1 All. E.R. 590; 326 US 572 – Referred

       (c) Administration of Justice – Administrative/Disciplinary enquiry and Criminal proceedings – Standard of proof are different – In Administrative/Disciplinary enquiry it is preponderance of probabilities – Findings of Probe Committee not to affect criminal proceedings – Right of accused to remain silent in view of criminal proceedings conceded – However, made clear that finding of Gurunath Meiyappan being a team official will have no effect on criminal proceeding and the concerned court will have its independent conclusions. (Para 32, 33)

       (d) Administration of Justice – Sporting fraud – Betting and spot fixing in IPL – Conclusions of Probe Committee – 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. (Para 37)

       (e) IPL Operational Rules – Rule 6.2.2 – Disciplinary Procedure Commission as envisaged – Probe Committee as constituted by Supreme Court – Meant to be and understood by all to be substitute for Disciplinary Procedure Commission – It was not a committee for preliminary enquiry, report of which was to be placed before the Disciplinary Procedure Commission – Validity of Probe Committee – Extraordinary situations require extraordinary remedies – Principles of natural justice complied by Probe Committee – Non-compliance of IPL Rules – Not material – No notice to Jaipur IPL Private Ltd. not material. (Para 40, 41, 42)

       AIR 1963 SC 1144; AIR 1939 Bombay 35; AIR 1949 PC 313 – Distinguished

       (f) IPL Operational Rules – Rule 6.4 – Misconduct of a team official which has adversely affected the image of the BCCI and the league as also the game and brought each one of them to disrepute – Can result in imposition of one or more of the sanctions stipulated under Rule 6.4 – Sanctions may extend to suspension of the team or the franchisee from the league also. (Para 50)

       (g) BCCI Anti Corruption Code for participants – Fundamental sporting imperatives – Article 2.2.1 – Betting an actionable wrong – Persons involved including ‘player support personnel’, manager, selector, team official etc. liable for appropriate sanction under Article 6. (Para 55)

       (h) Code of Conduct for Players and the Team Official – Article 2.4.4 and 7 – Match Referee or the Commissioner empowered to impose suitable sanction – Franchisee agreement terminable for misconduct of the franchisee, any franchisee group company and/or any owner. (Para 58, 60)

       (i) Cricket match fixing/ betting – Actions of Mr. Srinivasan – Alleged attempted cover up for his son-in-law – Not substantiated. (Para 65)

       (j) Constitution of Indian – Article 226 – Rule 6.2.4, IPL Operational Rules – BCCI amenable to writ jurisdiction – Corollary – Its action subject to judicial review in the same away as the State or its instrumentalities – Amendment to rule 6.2.4 – Subject to similar judicial review. (Para 69)

       (k) IPL Operational Rules – Rule 6.2.4 – Amendment therein – Challenge to validity – Three fold test – Competency, compliance of procedure and vires qua any statute or principle of law – Amendment made by competent authority – Procedural deficiency not material – Amendment not challenged on ground of being ultra vires any law – Challenged on ground of failure of natural justice – However principles of natural justice apply only in areas not covered by any law validly made – Conflict of duty and interest and bias – Principles of natural justice vis-à-vis Article 14 of the Constitution – These principles apply to judicial, quasi judicial or administrative actions alike. ((Para 73, 74, 75, 78)

       (1969) 2 SCC 262; (1985) 3 SCC 398; (1986) 3 SCC 156 – Relied upon

       (l) Conflict of Interest – It is one thing that conflict may arise even when rules do not specifically permit such a conflict situation – However, to permit acts which will per se bring about such a conflict is totally a different thing – IPL Operational Rules – Rule 6.2.4 – After amendment, permits creation of commercial interests in the events organized by BCCI by its Administrators – Amended provision disregarding 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 – Instantly, commercial interest held by India Cements Ltd. Mr. Srinivasan in the IPL owned by and other events – Held conflict with his discharge of public functions as a functionary of BCCI – Impermissible – Three instances enumerated. (Para 81 to 83)

       (m) IPL Operational Rules – Rule 6.2.4 – Amendment – Validity – An administrator could not have any commercial interest in any event organized by BCCI on the date of the award of the franchise – Rule 6.2.4 amended to permit it – Liable to be struck down. (Para 84)

       (n) Words and phrases – Public policy – Represents a dynamic concept – Incapable of any strait-jacket definition, meaning or explanation – That is why has not been given any precise definition though used in many statutes – Principles governing public policy are capable of expansion or modification – In deciding whether a situation is opposed to public policy Courts, in absence of anything should be guided by the Constitution : the Preamble and the principles underlying the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles – 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. (Para 85, 86, 87, 88, 90)

       (1974) 2 SCC 472; (1986) 3 SCC 156; (2003) 5 SCC 705; (2014) 9 SCC 263 – Relied upon

       (o) IPL Operational Rules – Rule 6.2.4 – Amendment – Validity – 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 at large – Conflict of interest damaging integrity of institution for gains of individual – Held to be against public policy, hence, illegal. (Para 90, 95, 96)

       (1991) 2 SCC 412; (2009) 7 SCC 1; (2011) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (p) IPL Operational Rules – Rule 6.2.4 – Administrator – A wide range of persons covered by definition of Administrator – None of the Administrator could have any commercial interest in any BCCI event but for the impugned amendment to Rule 6.2.4 – Amendment permitting investment by ICL owned by Mr. Srinivasan, President of BCCI in acquiring franchise and CSK – Business investment – Acquiring commercial interest in IPL or like events organised by BCCI – Amendment held bad – Question whether engagement of players in IPL would fall foul of the prohibition contained in Rule 6.2.4 as it stood before amendment left open – For the present, 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. (Para 98)

       (q) IPL Operational Rules – Rule 6 – Match fixing and betting – Punishment – Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra held to be guilty of betting – BCCI vested with power to impose punishment – However, instantly not proper to leave award of punishment to BCCI – A Committee of outstanding judicial minds of impeccable honesty constituted to determine and award punishment as also to examine the role played by Mr. Sundar Raman – Terms of reference of the Committee decided. (Para 107, 108, 109)

       Facts of the case:

       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 of 2013.

       Finding of the Court:

       Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra held to be guilty of betting. Misconduct against these two individuals is actionable. Action can also be taken against the franchisees concerned. Quantum of sanction/punishment can vary depending upon the gravity of the misconduct of the persons committing the same.

       Result; Appeals disposed of.