Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 1251
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
Swarnendu Banerjee - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.A No. 19570 of 2022
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Rahul Karmakar, Advocate, Sounak Mukherjee, Advocate, Sandip Kumar Bhattacharyya, Advocate, Soumya Majumder, Advocate, Sanjukta Dutta, Advocate
The judgment establishes the principle that the jurisdiction of Article 226 of The Constitution of India applies to sports federations like BFI, and the imposition of penalties must comply with the organization's Rules and Regulations and follow due procedure.
Headnote:
BFI - Jurisdiction of Court - Article 226 of The Constitution of India - Rules and Regulations of BFI - Suspension and Debarment of Player - Financial Connection with Public Bodies - Compliance with Disciplinary Regulations
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a playing member of the West Bengal Bridge Association, was suspended and debarred from Bridge Tournaments by the Bridge Federation of India (BFI) due to social media posts against BFI administrators. The petitioner challenged the notices issued by BFI.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that BFI falls within the jurisdiction of Article 226 of The Constitution of India, and the writ petition was maintainable. The impugned notices were quashed due to non-compliance with the Rules and Regulations of BFI and lack of proper procedure in imposing the penalty.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Court, Compliance with Rules and Regulations of BFI, Validity of Suspension and Debarment
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that BFI falls within the jurisdiction of Article 226 of The Constitution of India. The suspension and debarment were quashed due to non-compliance with the Rules and Regulations of BFI and lack of proper procedure in imposing the penalty.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned notices and issued an injunction on BFI from acting on the suspension and debarment of the petitioner from national and international Bridge Tournaments conducted or approved by the BFI.
JUDGMENT
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - The petitioner is a playing member of the West Bengal Bridge Association and has participated in several Bridge Tournaments organised by the respondent no. 3/Bridge Federation of India (BFI). The West Bengal Bridge Association is affiliated to the Bridge Federation of India. The petitioner seeks quashing of two notices issued by the BFI dated 20th July, 2022 and 1st August, 2022. By these letters, the petitioner was suspended from all Bridge Tournaments pending enquiry and was debarred from participating in any tournament conducted by the BFI as well as international events of the World Bridge Federation for a period of 18 months effective from 15th July, 2022.
2. The BFI, represented by learned counsel, urges that the writ petition is not maintainable since the Bridge Federation of India against who reliefs have been sought, is not an entity amenable to Article 226 of The Constitution of India.
3. The point of maintainability is being answered first.
4. It is undisputed that BFI is the sole custodian of the right to select players for national and international Bridge Tournaments and approves their participation in such events. BFI hence is the only decision-making body in matters of permitting selected players for participating in national and international Bridge Tournaments. The Supreme Court dealt with a similar question on whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was amenable to judicial review: Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar; (2015) 3 SCC 251. The Supreme Court held that BCCI falls within Article 226 of the Constitution even though it is not a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The rationale of the Supreme Court was based on the nature of the duties and function performed by BCCI; one of the grounds being that BCCI has complete control over the game of cricket in this country to the exclusion of all others.
5. Paragraph 33 of the Report applies with full vigour to the facts and logic in the present case. Like the BCCI, the respondent no. 3/Bridge Federation of India, formulates the regulations, norms and standards covering all aspects of Bridge Tournaments played in the country as well as outside India. The power of choosing the members of the national team and of disqualifying players is also a common function shared by both BFI and BCCI. This would be borne out from the impugned decisions of suspension and debarment made against the petitioner in the present case as well as the Rules and Regulations forming part of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of BFI. The Rules and Regulations indicate that BFI has complete sway over the game of Bridge in the country and exercises sole authority which may irrevocably impact the sporting career of a Bridge player. The facts concerning the merits of the case in the following paragraphs would substantiate this point.
6. Besides, the balance-sheet of BFI as of 31st March, 2019 reflects the grants and sponsorships received from the Sports Authority of India which further goes to show the financial connection between BFI and public bodies related to sports in the country.
7. The argument of learned counsel appearing for BFI that the writ petition is in the nature of a service dispute is liable to be rejected. The argument may have been persuasive had the petitioner been a member of BFI. This is evidently not the case since a 'member' of BFI can only mean a State association or an All India Sports Control Body affiliated to BFI under Rule I(14) of the Rules and Regulations of BFI. Rule 1(18) also provides that a permanent member shall only mean the association registered under the relevant Act framed in the State/UT having registered players to conduct bridge events in the State/UT. The fact that the petitioner is not a member of BFI hence deflates the argument of the writ petition being in the nature of a service dispute. In St. Mary's Education Society vs. Rajendra
