Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Board of Control for Cricket in India and Ors. – APPELLANTS
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 With WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 46 OF 2017 With CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 47 OF 2017 In CIVIL APPEAL No. 4235 OF 2014 With WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 287 OF 2017 With CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 959 OF 2017 In CIVIL APPEAL No. 1155 OF 2015 With CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1835 OF 2017 In CIVIL APPEAL No. 4235 OF 2014
Decided On : 09-08-2018
(2015) 3 SCC 251 – Referred
(b) Draft constitution of BCCI – Clause 26(2)A(ii), Clause 26 (2) B (i) and Clause 26 (2) C (ii) – No. of selectors – Men’s Selection Committee, Junior Cricket selection Committee and Women’s Selection Committee – Need for broad based selection committee – No. of selectors increased from 3 as recommended by Lodha committee to 5 for each of the three committees. (Para 22)
(c) Draft constitution for BCCI – tenure of office bearers and cooling off period – terms of office for office bearers of the BCCI and state association as three years and a total of nine years accepted – no person can remain an office bearer (regardless of the post held) for more than nine years in all – need for cooling off period accepted – held, there shall be a cooling off period of three years after an individual has held the post of an office bearer for two consecutive terms. (Para 29, 34)
(d) Draft constitution for BCCI – Clause 15 (1) – Clause 15 (1) regarding functions of apex council as proposed accepted – Similarly Clause 6 (5) in regard to disqualification for becoming office bearers also accepted – Similarly Clauses 29, 33(1), 33(2) and 45 also approved – Held, there can be no amendment in the constitution as approved by Supreme Court without leave of the Court – Directions given. (Para 36, 37, 39)
Facts of the case
This case discusses the draft constitution for BCCI submitted by the CoA.
Finding of the Court:
Constitution is justified.
Result: Draft constitution for BCCI as proposed by CoA approved.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The draft constitution for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), as proposed by the Committee of Administrators (CoA), has been approved with modifications by the Supreme Court, including provisions on cooling periods and restrictions on amendments without Court approval (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that any amendments to the approved constitution require prior leave of the Court to ensure adherence to the Court’s directions (!) (!) (!) .
The Court directed the Registrar of Societies to register the approved constitution under the relevant Societies Registration Act and report compliance within four weeks (!) .
Each member of the BCCI and its affiliated associations must undertake to register their respective constitutions in a manner consistent with the Court-approved model within 30 days of the Court’s order (!) .
The Court outlined specific provisions on membership, including the principle of "One State – One Vote," and detailed the criteria and recognition process for full and associate members, considering historical contributions and territoriality (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
It acknowledged the special contributions of certain associations such as Mumbai, Vidarbha, Baroda, and Saurashtra, and granted them full membership due to their historical and cricketing significance (!) (!) .
The Court approved the composition, appointment process, and eligibility criteria for various selection committees (Men’s, Junior, Women’s) and office bearers, emphasizing transparency and merit-based selection, including minimum playing experience and retirement periods (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court upheld the tenure limits for office bearers (three-year terms, maximum nine years in total), and mandated a three-year cooling-off period after two consecutive terms to prevent concentration of power and promote broader participation (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court approved the division of functions between the General Body and the Apex Council, with the latter responsible for professional management, including appointment of key officials like the CEO, under a framework that ensures accountability and limits unfettered powers (!) (!) .
Disqualifications for office bearers were specified, including age limits, citizenship, insolvency, criminal charges, and cumulative tenure restrictions, to uphold integrity and accountability (!) (!) .
The Court approved provisions for conducting elections, including appointment of Electoral Officers, supervision of nominations, and the requirement of a supermajority for amendments, all subject to Court approval (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the approved constitution shall be implemented and registered promptly, with ongoing compliance monitored by the CoA, and any non-compliance to be addressed through Court orders (!) (!) .
The Court reinforced that any future amendments to the approved constitution require prior Court approval, ensuring the integrity of the governance framework established (!) .
The overall objective is to reform and rationalize the governance structure of BCCI to promote transparency, accountability, and fair representation, while respecting historical contributions and promoting broad-based participation in Indian cricket administration.
JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. While pronouncing its judgment on 18 July 2016 in Board of Control for Cricket in India v Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251 this Court accepted the reforms in the administration of cricket proposed by a Committee chaired by Justice RM Lodha [Abbreviated in this judgment as the Lodha Committee]. The review petition has been dismissed. On 2 January 2017, this Court directed that a Committee of Administrators[Abbreviated as CoA] shall supervise the administration of BCCI through its Chief Executive Officer. The CoA was constituted on 17 January 2017. On 24 July 2017, this Court directed that except for certain outstanding issues which were identified, the recommendations of the Lodha Committee must be implemented:
“...(c) All concerned shall implement the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee Report as far as practicable, barring the issues which have been raised pertaining to membership, number of members of the selection committee, concept of associate membership, etc. The purpose is to implement the report as far as practicable and, thereafter, it shall be debated as to how the scheme of things can be considered so that the cricket, the ‘gentleman’s game’, remains nearly perfect. Be it noted, the issue with regard to disqualification or qualification of the representative is kept open.” (Emphasis supplied)
On 23 August 2017, the CoA was entrusted to prepare a draft constitution in accordance with the judgment rendered on 18 July 2016 and the order dated 24 July 2017. Modalities were evolved by this Court to consider the concerns of stakeholders by ensuring that the draft constitution is duly circulated between all the counsel so that their suggestions could be evaluated. This Court observed :
“we…direct the Committee of Administrators to prepare a draft Constitution in terms of the main judgment as well as the order dated 24th July, 2017. A copy of the draft Constitution shall be handed over to Advocate-on-Record assisting the learned counsel for the respondents. A copy of the draft Constitution be also handed over to Mr. B.K. Prasad, learned counsel assisting Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General . Suggestions, if any, to the draft Constitution be handed over to the learned counsel assisting the learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Parag P. Tripathi so that they can prepare a chart and will be in a position to give their comments.
...
On the next date of hearing, besides the three aspects that have been mentioned in the order dated 24th July, 2017, any aspect which is sought to be raised by the Association can be raised. But, it is to be impressed that the suggestion must have acceptable sanctity. It should not be raised for the sake of raising an objection.” (Emphasis supplied)
2. On 21 September 2017, the CoA made a grievance that quite apart from the fact that no suggestions were received, a concerted effort was made by the office bearers of BCCI not to abide by the judgment of the Court. Hence, on 21 September 2017, the Court while recording the above submission extended another opportunity to receive suggestions to the draft constitution :
“In the course of hearing, it is submitted by Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Committee of Administrators that though a draft constitution was handed over to the office bearers of B.C.C.I. and also to all concerned, no suggestion has been received and a concerted attempt has been adopted by the office bearers of B.C.C.I. not to follow the judgment of this Court.
We may hasten to add that in our previous order dated 24th July, 2017, we have clearly indicated that three to four aspects shall be debated. The suggestions in that regard can be given to Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Committee of Administrators, Needless to emphasize, Mr. C.K. Khanna, Mr. Anirudh Chaudhry and Mr. Amitabh Choudhary, Office Bearers of B.C.C.I. shall fully cooperate while giving the suggest
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
