2016 Supreme(SC) 558

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET – PETITIONER
Versus
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4235 of 2014, 4236 of 2014 & 1155 of 2015
Decided On : 18-07-2016

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Prejudice – Recommendations of the Committee constituted by Supreme Court – Remand – Committee comprising distinguished jurists familiar with the requirements of fairness and objectivity – Committee providing a hearing to everyone likely to be affected – Report not binding unless accepted and only recommendatory – No prejudice to BCCI – BCCI praying for remand to the Committee – Court hearing BCCI and everyone on the recommendations – No reason to remand. (Para 45)

       (2015) 3 SCC 251 – Referred

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 12 and 226 – BCCI not a State in terms of Article 12 – Still it

       (2005) 4 SCC 649 – Referred

       (c) Administration of justice – Recommendations of Lodha Committee – Neither BCCI nor anybody else challenging findings of the Committee about the deep rooted malaise that pervades in the working of the BCCI – In that view, reforms becomes inevitable. (Para 50)

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(c) – Right guaranteed in favour of citizens and citizens alone – Recourse to Article 19(1)(C) not open to juristic or other persons and entities who are non-citizens like BCCI or State Associations – Contention that the recommendations of the Committee affect citizens forming the State Associations – No citizen coming forward to challenge the recommendations – Recommendations not affecting composition of State Cricket Associations in any manner – Rights of citizens not affected by the recommendations – Moreover, rights under Article 19(1)(c) are subject to just regulations. (Para 53, 54, 60, 61)

       AIR 1962 SC 171; AIR 1965 SC 40; (1971) 2 SCC 269; (1971) 1 SCC 678; (2004) 1 SCC 712 – Relied upon

       (1978) 1 SCC 248; AIR 1962 SC 171 – Referred

       (e) Administration of justice – BCCI – Recommendations of the Committee – One State one vote – Full membership – Railways Sports Promotion Board, Association of Indian Universities, Services Sports Control Board, National Cricket Club (Kolkata) and Cricket Club of India (Bombay) – Not representing any geographical territory – Cricket Club of India and National Cricket Club are recreational clubs and do not even field teams in competitive cricket – Committee recommending discontinuation of their full membership – Other three though fielding teams, not receiving any monetary assistance from BCCI – Committee recommending conversion of these clubs and associations, without a territory, from full members to associate members – Recommendations sound – Accepted. (Para 63)

       (f) Administration of justice – Structure of BCCI – Recommendation of Committee for ‘one State, one vote’ – Unexceptionable – Question of Maharashtra and Gujarat – Three full member Associations from each – Representing three different regions since inception – Some of them founding members of BCCI – One out of the three Associations in Maharashtra and Gujarat each directed to have full membership on rotational basis – Order of rotation to be decided by BCCI. (Para 65)

       (g) Administration of justice – Restructuring BCCI – Lodha Committee recommendations – Upper age limit of 70 years for office bearers – Players of competitive cricket – Age group 18 to 35 years – As per the recommendation players can still contribute to cricket for another 35 years – Held, upper age limit of 70 years not an unusual or unacceptable norm so as to warrant interference – Recommendation accepted. (Para 68)

       (h) Administration of justice – Restructuring BCCI – Office bearers – Disqualification – Lodha Committee making Ministers and Government Officials ineligible – Presence of Ministers and Civil Servants brings several considerations not conducive to the promotion of the game – At times, results in creation of vested interests, groupism and rivalries that harm the game far more than helping it – Court refusing to interfere. (Para 70, 71)

       (i) Administration of justice – Recommendations of Lodha Committee – Dual posts – Persons holding two posts, one each in the State Association and the BCCI – Lodha Committee recommending discontinuation of the practice and sticking to one person one post – Recommendation not perverse – Interference declined. (Para 73)

       (j) Administration of justice – Recommendations of Lodha Committee – Inclusion of a nominee of the Accountant General of the State in the Governing Body of the State Associations and a nominee of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (C&AG) as Member of the Apex Council in BCCI – To bring transparency and oversight in monitoring the finances of the BCCI – For ensuring financial discipline, transparency and accountability – Nominees of AG and CAG would act as conscience keepers of the State Association and BCCI in financial matters – ICC would appreciate any such step which would prevent misgivings about the working of the BCCI – Article 2.9(B), ICC Rules. (Para 76, 77)

       (k) Administration of justice – Recommendations of Lodha Committee – Players’ Association – Formation, financial support by BCCI and representation in BCCI council – Nobody challenging formation of Players’ Association – What is criticized is the proposed requirement of financial assistance by BCCI – Committee not specifying extent of such support – Left to discretion of BCCI – Recommendations cannot be rejected. (Para 79, 80)

       (l) Administration of justice – Recommendations of Lodha Committee – Bringing BCCI under Right to Information Act, 2005 – Court expecting the Law Commission of India to examine the issue and make a suitable recommendation to the Government. (Para 82)

       (m) Administration of justice – Recommendations of Lodha Committee – Number of terms for which an officer bearer can serve and the optimum period for which one can be a member of the apex council as also cooling off period between two terms – Disqualification of office bearer – Rules and regulations silent – Committee recommending three years term and optimum period of 9 years with cooling off period – Not unreasonable – No interference called for. (Para 89)

       (n) Administration of justice – Recommendations of Lodha Committee – Overhaul of the existing Committees of the BCCI – Committee recommending an administrative set up – No compelling reason to reject the recommendation. (Para 90)

       Facts of the case:

       These proceedings are a sequel to the order dated 22nd January, 2015 [BCCI vs. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251].

       It was held that even when the Board of Control for Cricket in India was not “State” within the meaning of Article 12, it was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it was discharging important public functions.

       The Supreme Court had set up a Committee comprising Justice R.M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India as Chairman with Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judges of Supreme Court as members to determine and award punishment considered appropriate on those found guilty by Justice Mudgal’s Committee and to examine for any disciplinary or punitive action, the role played by Mr. Sundar Raman with the help of the investigating team constituted for that purpose.

       The task assigned to the Committee was to recommend such changes in the rules and regulations of BCCI as would in the opinion of the Committee safeguard the interest of public at large in the sport of cricket, improve the ethical standards and discipline in the game, streamline and promote efficiency in the management of BCCI, provide accessibility and transparency, prevent conflict of interest situations and eradicate political and commercial interference and abuse and create mechanisms for resolution of disputes within the BCCI. The direction issued by this Court for all round reform in the working of the BCCI and the conduct of its affairs proceeded fundamentally on the juristic foundation that BCCI was discharging public functions and is, therefore, subject to the rigours of ‘Public Law’ making it mandatory for the BCCI to adhere to the principles of reasonableness, fairness, accountability and transparency.

       The Committee came to the definite conclusion that BCCI has been suffering from many ills that had become endemic due to the apathy and involvement of those at the helm of the Board’s administration. The Committee recorded a specific finding that the problems faced by the BCCI have been compounded by the involvement/association of many high functionaries in the Central and State Governments some of whom had remained in charge of the administration of the BCCI for several decades. It also came to the conclusion that many officials of the State Associations were holding power without any accountability and transparency by converting the Associations into personal fiefdoms.

       The Committee has recommended several steps and measures that would in its opinion streamline the working of the BCCI and possibly prevent any aberrations or controversies in which it has been embroiled in the past.

       At the same time certain other intervenors have stoutly supported the report of the Committee and the recommendations made therein.