2015 (1) TMI 1428 - SC - Indian Laws

BCCI Not 'State' but Subject to Writ Jurisdiction | Cricket Officials Guilty of Betting

The Supreme Court held that the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) is not considered 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution but is subject to ... Sporting frauds - Match fixing and betting - Regulation 6.2.4 of the IPL Regulations - Exclusion from its operation events like IPL and Champions' League twenty-20. HELD THAT:- Amendment to Rule 6.2.4 whereby the words ‘excluding events like IPL or Champions League Twenty 20’, were added to the said rule is hereby declared void and ineffective. The Committee shall, before taking a final view on the quantum of punishment to be awarded, issue notice to all those likely to be affected and provide to them a hearing in the matter. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and binding upon BCCI and the parties concerned subject to the right of the aggrieved party seeking redress in appropriate judicial proceedings in accordance with law - The three-member Committee constituted in terms of Para (II) above, shall also examine the role of Mr. Sundar Raman with or without further investigation, into his activities, and if found guilty, impose a suitable punishment upon him on behalf of BCCI. The constitution of the Committee or its deliberations shall not affect the ensuing elections which the BCCI shall hold within six weeks from the date of this order in accordance with the prevalent rules and regulations subject to the condition that no one who has any commercial interest in the BCCI events (including Mr. N. Srinivasan) shall be eligible for contesting the elections for any post whatsoever - The Committee shall be free to fix their fees which shall be paid by the BCCI who shall, in addition, bear all incidental expenses such as travel, hotel, transport and secretarial services, necessary for the Committee to conclude its proceedings. The fees will be paid by the BCCI to the members at such intervals and in such manner as the Committee may decide. The venue of the proceedings shall be at the discretion of the Committee. These appeals shall stand disposed of in the above terms with the direction that the relevant record received from Justice Mudgal Committee shall be forwarded to the Chairman of the newly appointed Committee without any delay. Issues Involved:1. Whether the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) is 'State' under Article 12 and amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.2. Whether Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were 'team officials' and if allegations of betting against them stand proved.3. Consequential actions permissible under relevant Rules and Regulations against those found guilty.4. Allegations of cover-up against Mr. N. Srinivasan.5. Validity of Regulation 6.2.4 permitting administrators to have commercial interests in IPL and other events.6. Allegations against Mr. Sundar Raman, Chief Operating Officer IPL.7. Orders and directions to be passed in light of the discussions and answers to the above questions.Detailed Analysis:Re: Question No. 1:The Supreme Court held that BCCI is not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, BCCI discharges several important public functions which make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that BCCI's control over cricket in India is deep and pervasive, and its actions must be judged by the standards applicable to judicial review of State action.Re: Question No. 2:The Court upheld the findings of the Probe Committee that Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official of Chennai Super Kings and was involved in betting. Similarly, Raj Kundra, part-owner and team official of Rajasthan Royals, was found guilty of betting. The Court noted that the findings were based on substantial evidence and there was no reason to interfere with the conclusions of the Probe Committee.Re: Question No. 3:The Court discussed the permissible actions under the IPL Operational Rules, Anti-Corruption Code for Participants, and the Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials. It was noted that sanctions could range from suspension of individuals to suspension of teams or franchisees. The Court emphasized that the BCCI has the authority to impose sanctions for misconduct, including betting, which adversely affects the image of the game.Re: Question No. 4:The Court found no conclusive evidence to prove that Mr. N. Srinivasan attempted to cover up the betting activities of his son-in-law, Gurunath Meiyappan. The allegations of cover-up were based on suspicion and did not meet the threshold of proof required to hold Mr. Srinivasan guilty.Re: Question No. 5:The amendment to Regulation 6.2.4, which allowed administrators to have commercial interests in IPL and other events, was declared void and against public policy. The Court held that the amendment perpetuated a conflict of interest, which is impermissible and undermines the integrity of the game. The Court emphasized that BCCI must adhere to principles of fairness, transparency, and probity.Re: Question No. 6:The Court found that the allegations against Mr. Sundar Raman, Chief Operating Officer IPL, warranted further investigation. The Probe Committee's findings raised serious suspicions about his involvement in betting activities and his failure to act on information received about betting. The Court directed further investigation to ascertain the truth.Re: Question No. 7:The Court constituted a three-member committee comprising former Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha, and former Judges Ashok Bhan and R.V. Raveendran to determine the quantum of punishment for Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj Kundra, and their respective franchisees. The Committee was also tasked with examining the role of Mr. Sundar Raman and making recommendations for reforms in BCCI's practices and procedures. The Court directed that the BCCI hold elections within six weeks, with a condition that no one with a commercial interest in BCCI events, including Mr. N. Srinivasan, shall be eligible to contest.Conclusion:The judgment underscores the need for transparency, fairness, and integrity in the administration of cricket in India. The Supreme Court's decision aims to restore public confidence in the game by addressing issues of conflict of interest and ensuring accountability in the functioning of BCCI.