1. Cricket's exponential growth into revenue generating sports has been shaped by the evolution of broadcasting live matches. This turned 'cricket' as part of the largest sports industry in the world. Of course, 'money' does not grow over 22-yard cricket pitch. It comes out of the hands of millions who are passionately entertained through the game. That interest of sports lovers seems to have an overriding concern for the cricket organisers now, more than cricket itself. Anything that befalls as 'good' on the people is because cricket still continues to be a game; anything that befalls as 'bad' because of commercial interest of players and organisers. This case depicts a case of the betting scandal affecting the morale of the sports and confidence of the millions who follow the game.

2. This writ petition is originated from disciplinary proceedings initiated against S. Sreesanth, a registered player with the Kerala Cricket Association, an affiliate of Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI), the national body for organising cricket in India. Sreesanth suffered an ignominious exit from all format of the cricket, nationally and internationally due to his alleged involvement in the allegations of corruption. He was arrested in a case registered by the Delhi Police. Later he was discharged from the crime as it was found that no offence would lie against him under the law. His alleged involvement is precisely depicted by reproduction of allegations in the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in his exit from playing cricket or representing any team for life. He was also restricted from being involved in any activities of the BCCI or its affiliates. The relevant portion of the allegations in the order which is impugned in this writ petition filed by Sreesanth reads as follows:

“(i) In relation to the match played on 9th May, 2013 between Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab at Mohali, it is alleged that in exchange for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, you had agreed to concede 14 or more runs in the second over of your bowling spell in the Match. In order to confirm that the fix was on you were required to place a small hand towel in your visible pocket while ensuring that there was no such towel during the first over. In support of these allegations audio-tapes of telephonic conversations between Mr. Jiju Janardhan and bookie Chandresh Chandubhai Patel (alias Chand) are said to be in the possession of the police. The contents of the said conversation are corroborated by the fact that you had bowled your first over in that match without a towel in your pocket and had bowled the second over with a towel in your pocket. It is also on record that you did concede 13 runs in your second over. It is also alleged that, at the request of the bookies, did some warm up exercises before starting the over, in order to give the bookies enough time to take bets.”

3. The decision of the BCCI was rendered after affording an opportunity of hearing to Sreesanth by a disciplinary committee constituted to enter into the allegations. It is pertinent to note that BCCI had formulated anti-corruption codes to ensure that action or conduct of players did not bring disreputation to the game or the BCCI. The charges leveled against Sreesanth are in relation to violations of anti-corruption codes. These codes were specifically designed for the Indian Premier League, a professional Twenty-20 cricket league constituted by teams representing Indian cities. This regulation, in fact, is moulded to sustain the confidence of the public at large in the transparency of the outcome of the game. The relevant part of the charges will be dealt in the later part of this judgment. Like many other cases, the BCCI defended this case also challenging the maintainability of the writ petition. Perhaps that issue requires serious consideration, in the light of the facts that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated against an individual player by a private body; whether it c