SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4235 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4236 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1155 OF 2015
Decided On : 21-10-2016
(b) Administration of justice – Compliance with directions – Court giving six month’s time for implementing reforms suggested by the Committee – Reforms cannot be completed in one go – Committee fixing timelines – Committee not precluded from fixing timelines – Grievance about the Committee travelling beyond parameters set by the Court – Could and ought to be urged before the Committee in the first instance. (Para 12, 13, 15)
(c) Administrative of justice – Binding nature of judgment/order – Court, by accepting Committee’s recommendations binding BCCI to them – Contention that these are not binding till the review and curative petitions are dismissed – Patently misconceived – After acceptance recommendations become directions of the Court – A party to a litigation cannot be heard to say that it would treat a judgment of this Court as not having binding effect unless the Review or Curative Petitions that it has filed are dismissed. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Report of the Committee consisting of Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice R.V. Raveendran was accepted by the Supreme Court on 18 December 2015 and final judgment was delivered on 18 July 2016. Status report of the Committee post 18 July 2016 is under consideration in this case.
The Committee has concluded that BCCI has violated its directions.
Finding of the Court:
Despite the prima facie findings which were arrived at in the previous order, the further hearing was deferred. There has been no change in the position of BCCI. The intransigence continues.
Result: The hearing of the proceedings shall stand over to 5 December 2016.
JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
On 7 October 2016, directions were issued by this Court pursuant to a status report dated 26 September 2016, submitted by the Committee consisting of Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice R.V. Raveendran. The status report filed by the Committee set out the sequence of events that had taken place after the final judgment and order of this Court dated 18 July 2016, which accepted the report submitted by the Committee on 18 December 2015 with certain modifications. A gist of the status report has been set out in the earlier order dated 7 October 2016. After adverting to the sequence of events, the Committee has concluded that BCCI has violated its directions:
"...Directions of this Hon'ble Court have been ignored, actions have been taken to present a fait accompli to the Committee, the directives of the Committee have been breached, and member associations have not been duly intimated about the directions of the Committee and the timelines fixed by it."
The Committee has observed that "BCCI has repeatedly taken steps to undermine the Committee and this Court", with several statements and actions which "are grossly out of order and would even constitute contempt". The Committee noted that despite several e-mails, as well as a direction to appear before it on 9 August 2016, the President of BCCI did not furnish even a single response to the Committee. The Committee also observed that the President of BCCI had even gone to the extent of requesting ICC to issue a letter that "this Committee amounts to governmental interference" besides making several objectionable statements in the press which undermined both the Court and the Committee.
2. The Committee submitted the above status report in pursuance of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016. This Court had by its judgment, while accepting the recommendations made in the earlier report of the Committee, assigned to the Committee a supervisory role for ensuring the transition from the old to the new system recommended by the Committee. While this Court in its judgment expressed a hope that the process of implementing the directions contained in the judgment would be completed within a period of four months or at best six months, the Committee was requested to draw appropriate timelines for the implementation of the recommendations and to supervise the implementation process. The Committee, while moving the status report observed that though the office bearers of BCCI had furnished assurances to it on 9 August 2016, 25 August 2016 and 20 September 2016, that they would cooperate with the Committee in fulfilling the directions of this Court (subject to any modification or review) these assurances had not been fulfilled.
3. In the previous Order of this Court dated 7 October 2016, the following prima facie, findings were recorded:-
"... The sequence of events that have been taken place since 18th July, 2016 and referred to in the status report prima facie give an impression that BCCI has far from lending its fullest cooperation to the Committee adopted an obstructionist and at times a defiant attitude which the Committee has taken note of and described as an impediment undermining not only the Committee but even the dignity of this Court with several statements and actions which according to the Committee are grossly out of order and may even constitute contempt".
This Court has noted that in spite of a direction issued by the Committee on 21 August 2016 that the AGM of BCCI which was to be held on 21 September 2016, may transact only routine business for 2015-16 and that any business or matter relating to 2016-17 may be dealt with only after the adoption of the Memorandum of Association and rules in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee, substantial amounts running into crores of rupees have been disbursed in favour of state associations. This Court expressed the view that BCCI could and indeed ought
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.