TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Adv., Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pooja Dhar,Adv., Mr. C.A.Sundram, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.R. Raman, Adv., Ms Akhila Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Radha Rangaswamy,Adv., Mr. S.P. Arthi, Adv., , Mr. Rahil Masearenhans, Adv., Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv., Ms. Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Adv., Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv., Ms. Pragya Baghel,Adv., Mr. Salim inamdar, Adv., Mr. P.B. Raman, Sr. Adv., Mr. T.K. Bhaskar, Adv., Mr. K.Harishankar, Adv., Mr. Aditya Verma, Adv., Ms. Chaitra Rawat,Adv., Ms. S.Lakshmi, Adv., Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra,Adv., Ms. Aarti Goyal, Adv., Ms. Tamali Wad, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Vaid, Adv., Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Adv., Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv., Mr. Rohan Shah, Adv., Mr. Deep Roy, Adv., Mr. Anthony Handique, Adv., Mr. Anish Dayal, adv., Mr. Kirat Singh Nagara, Adv., Mr. Monish Panda, Adv., Mr. Kshitiz Karjee, Adv., Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Neha Sharma, Adv., Mr. Deeptakriti Verma, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. adv., Mr. Ishwar Nankani, Adv., Ms. Roshmi Singh, Adv., Mr. Mishra Saurabh, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv., Mr. Hari Shankar K., Adv., Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv., Ms. Vanita Chandrakant Giri, Adv., Mr. Rahul Pratap ,Adv. JUDGMENT T.S. Thakur, J. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Cricket Association of Bihar is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 just as Respondent - BCCI is a Society registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Registration of Societies Act 1975. Mr. N. Srinivasan - Respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeal No. 4236 of 2014 is the President of the Board besides being the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of Respondent No. 3-India Cements Limited, a public Limited Company. 5. In a meeting held on 13th September, 2007, the working committee of the Respondent-Board appears to have taken a decision to launch what came to be known as Indian Premier League (IPL) to be run by a Committee constituted by general body of the BCCI to be called IPL Governing Council. In December 2007 the IPL Governing Council invited tenders for grant of IPL franchises on open competitive bidding basis, in which only corporate bodies were allowed to participate. India Cements Ltd. was one of those who participated in the auction for the Chennai franchise and emerged successful in the same. The team it assembled was christened Chennai Super Kings. Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited partly owned and promoted by Respondent No. 5 similarly emerg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y against among others Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan for his involvement in betting and spot fixing. The Petitioner further prayed for termination of the franchise agreement entered into between the BCCI, on the one hand, and Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals on the other. A mandamus directing institution of disciplinary proceedings against Mr. N. Srinivasan was also prayed for, besides a prayer for his suspension pending the probe and other proceedings. The Appellant-Association in addition prayed for a prohibition against Mr. N. Srinivasan restraining him from contesting the election for the post of President of BCCI in future and representing the BCCI in the International Cricket Council (ICC). 9. By its order dated 30th July, 2013, a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay declared that the Probe Commission set up by the BCCI was not validly constituted being in violation of the provisions of Rules 2.2 and 3 of Section 6 of the IPL Operational Rules. The High Court, however, declined to grant any further relief by way of constituting a panel to conduct an enquiry under the supervision of the High Court. The High Court was of the view that constitution of a Probe Committee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concerned, the Committee submitted a report dated 9th February, 2014, in which the Committee arrived at the following conclusions: (i) That Gurunath Meiyappan formed an integral part of Chennai Super Kings and most persons viewed him as the face of the team, though de-jure ownership vested in India Cements Ltd. (ii) That Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official within the meaning of IPL Operational Rules if not de facto owner of CSK. (iii) That Gurunath Meiyappan had knowledge of or was in a position to easily access sensitive team information, team strategies knowledge about match conditions etc. which knowledge was outside the purview of an ordinary person following the game of cricket. (iv) That Gurunath Meiyappan was also a participant under IPL Anti-corruption Code hence IPL Rules and Regulations were squarely applicable to him. (v) That Gurunath Meiyappan was in regular touch with bookies and punters. (vi) That several calls were traced between Gurunath Meiyappan and Vindoo Dara Singh who was himself a punter in close proximity with several other bookies, evident from the telephonic transcripts produced by the Bombay Police.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, which is further accentuated by the position he held in CSK, which was held by Mr. Meiyappan with the implicit approval of the franchisee owner India Cements, Mr. Meiyappan is in violation of Sections 2.2.1 and 2.14 the IPL Operational Rules for bringing the game in disrepute, Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3 of the IPL Anti Corruption Code for his acts of betting and Articles 2.4.4 of the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials, for bring disrepute to the game of cricket. The said illegal acts further stand accentuated in light of his position/role in CSK. The Committee is also of the opinion that the franchisee owner of CSK is responsible for failing to ensure Mr. Meiyappan (Team Officials) had complied with the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code, IPL Operational rules, IPL Regulations and hence the franchisee's actions are in violation of Section 4.4.1 of the IPL Operational Rules and Clause 11.3 of the franchises agreement. (Emphasis supplied) 14. As regards the allegations of betting and spot-fixing in IPL made against Mr. Raj Kundra, the Committee opined that further and serious investigation was required to be conducted into the said allegations for the allega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had observed that for the Committee to arrive at a conclusive finding as regards the voice alleged to be that of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, a scientific evaluation was necessary. The Committee's final report took note of the scientific evaluation and recorded a unanimous conclusion that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan had actually indulged in betting in IPL matches. It, however, found no material to show that Gurunath Meiyappan was involved in match fixing. 17. As regards Mr. Raj Kundra, the Committee came to the conclusion that Mr. Kundra had indulged in betting in violation of BCCI Regulations and IPL Anti-Corruption Code. The Committee further came to the conclusion that N. Srinivasan was not involved in match fixing activity nor was he involved in preventing investigation into match fixing. The Committee held that although Mr. N. Srinivasan was aware of the violation of the players' code, by individual No. 3 yet no action was taken against him by Mr. Srinivasan or any other official who was aware of the infraction. 18. Copies of the report except the portion that related to findings qua the players were made available to counsel for the parties to give them an opportunity to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have examined and interpreted the expression appearing in Article 12 with a view to determining whether or not a given entity is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. It is unnecessary to refer to all such decisions pronounced over the past few decades not only because the law is by now fairly well settled by Constitution Bench decisions of this Court but also because the question whether or not BCCI is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 may not make any material difference to the case at hand in view of the admitted position that Respondent-BCCI does discharge several important public functions which make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We may all the same refer to a few landmarks on the judicial landscape only as a reminder to what is settled and binding upon us. 21. In Sukhdev and Ors. etc. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr. etc. (1975) 1 SCC 421, one of the questions that fell for considerations was whether an employee of statutory corporation like Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act 1959, Indian Finance Corporation,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sified as a State agency. If a given function is of such public importance and so closely related to governmental functions as to be classified as a governmental agency, then even the presence or absence of State financial aid might be irrelevant in making a finding of State action. If the function does not fall within such a description, then mere addition of State money would not influence the conclusion. 101. In America, corporations or associations, private in character, but dealing with public rights, have already been held subject to constitutional standards. Political parties, for example, even though they are not statutory organisations, and are in form private clubs, are within this category. So also are labour unions on which statutes confer the right of collective bargaining.... 102. Institutions engaged in matters of high public interest or performing public functions are by virtue of the nature of the function performed government agencies. Activities which are too fundamental to the society are by definition too important not to be considered government function. This demands the delineation of a theory which requires Government to provide all person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....day as to what is and what is not within the functions of Government". Douglas, J., also observed to the same effect in New York v. United States: "A State's project is as much a legitimate governmental activity whether it is traditional, or akin to private enterprise, or conducted for profit." Cf. Helvering v. Gerhardt. A State may deem it as essential to its economy that it own and operate a railroad, a mill, or an irrigation system as it does to own and operate bridges, street lights, or a sewage disposal plant. What might have been viewed in an earlier day as an improvident or even dangerous extension of State activities may today be deemed indispensable. It may be noted that besides the so-called traditional functions, the modern State operates a multitude of public enterprises and discharges a host of other public functions. If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. This is precisely what was pointed out by Mathew, J., in Sukhdev v. Bhagatram where the learned Judge said that "institutions engaged in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs. (1975) 1 SCC 485, this Court held that Council of Scientific and Industrial Research even when registered as Society was 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. 27. In Board of Control for Cricket in India and Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 741, this Court had an occasion to consider the role and the nature of functions being discharged by the BCCI. This Court held that the Boards control over the sport of cricket was deep and pervasive and that it exercised enormous public functions, which made it obligatory for the Board to follow the doctrine of 'fairness and good faith'. This Court said: 80. The Board is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. It enjoys a monopoly status as regards Regulation of the sport of cricket in terms of its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. It controls the sport of cricket and lays down the law therefor. It inter alia enjoys benefits by way of tax exemption and right to use stadia at nominal annual rent. It earns a huge revenue not only by selling tickets to viewers but also selling right to exhibit films live on TV and broadcasting the same. Ordinari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (supra), this Court held that the Board was not financially, functionally or administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government so as to bring it within the expression 'State' appearing in Article 12 of the Constitution. Having said that this Court examined whether the Board was discharging public duties in the nature of State functions. Repelling the contention that the functions being discharged by the Board were public duties in the nature of State functions which would make the Board a State within the meaning of Article 12 this Court observed: 29. It was then argued that the Board discharges public duties which are in the nature of State functions. Elaborating on this argument it was pointed out that the Board selects a team to represent India in international matches. The Board makes rules that govern the activities of the cricket players, umpires and other persons involved in the activities of cricket. These, according to the Petitioner, are all in the nature of State functions and an entity which discharges such functions can only be an instrumentality of State, therefore, the Board falls within the definition of State for the purpose of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a petition Under Article 32. But that does not mean that the violator of such right would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a State. Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for the violation of a right of a citizen. Though the remedy Under Article 32 is not available, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is much wider than Article 32. (Emphasis supplied) 30. The majority view thus favours the view that BCCI is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 even when it is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. The rationale underlying that view if we may say with utmost respect lies in the "nature of duties and functions" which the BCCI performs. It is common ground that the Respondent-Board has a complete sway over the game of cricket in this country. It regulates and controls the game to the exclusion of all others. It formulates rules, Regul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not answerable on the standards generally applicable to judicial review of State action. Our answer to question No. 1, therefore, is in the negative, qua, the first part and affirmative qua the second. BCCI may not be State Under Article 12 of the Constitution but is certainly amenable to writ jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Re: Question No. 2: 31. The Probe Committee, on an interpretation of the provisions of the relevant rules and the material placed before it, recorded a specific finding that Gurunath Meiyappan was working/associated with the IPL as team official of the Chennai Super Kings. The Committee further held that for the operation of the relevant Rules and Regulations it made no difference whether Gurunath Meiyappan was the owner or simply a team official of CSK. That is because so long as Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official, which the Committee found he was, the consequences of his acts of betting would flow even when he was not the owner, or the perceived owner of the CSK. That Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official of CSK owned by India Cements Ltd. was not disputed by either India Cements Ltd. or any other party appearing befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion needs to be taken against those accused of such activities. Having said so, we must make it clear that given the nature of the proceedings entrusted to the Probe Committee and the standard of proof applicable to the same, we see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Probe Committee that Gurunath Meiyappan was indeed indulging in betting. The material assembled in the course of the investigation by the Probe Committee provides a reasonably safe basis for holding that the accusations made against Gurunath Meiyappan stood established on a preponderance of probabilities. We are at any rate not sitting in appeal against the findings of a Domestic Tribunal set up to enquire into the allegations of misconduct levelled against a team official of a participating team. We are not, therefore, reappraising the material that has been assembled by the Probe Committee and relied upon to support its finding. The finding is by no means without basis or perverse to call for our interference with the same. 34. That brings us to the findings recorded against Mr. Raj Kundra, whose part ownership and accreditation as a team official of Rajasthan Royal was not disputed before us. In its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e position as regards corruption in cricket and any possible violation of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code and the Operational Rules by any person. It goes without saying that Mr. Raj Kundra and his wife Ms. Shilpa Shetty Kundra were owners as per the Franchise Agreement and accredited as such under the IPL Operational Rules. They are Team officials within the meaning of the said Rules. Being Team officials they are subject to the Code of conduct for Players and Team Officials prohibiting betting in course of IPL matches and would face appropriate sanctions under the Operational Rules. It would be in fitness of things that pending final determination of the culpability of the Kundras, they be kept suspended from participating in any activity of the BCCI including the IPL matches in view of the materials on record. 36. This Court taking note of the observations made by the Probe Committee not only directed further investigation into the allegations against Mr. Raj Kundra but also provided necessary support to the Probe Committee to do so effectively. The Committee has on the basis of the said further investigation and enquiry come to the conclusion that Mr. Raj Kundra was a 'tea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluding the right to call and to question and examine witnesses in person or by telephone or video conference where necessary. Reliance was placed upon Rule 6.3.19 to argue that standard of proof in support of the complaint shall be whether "the Commission is comfortably satisfied" bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations made regarding the 'commission of the offence' and that the standard of proof in all cases shall be considered on a sliding scale from, at a minimum, a mere balance of probability upto proof beyond a reasonable doubt from the least serious to the most serious offences. It was contended that the person found guilty is then entitled to file an appeal before the Appeal Commission established Under Section 6.5.4 consisting upto three members to hear and decide the appeal. This procedure, it was argued by Mr. Naphade, could not be deviated from as the rules were binding upon the parties concerned. Reliance in support was placed on the decisions of this Court in T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363 S.C. Belgaum and Ors. (AIR 1963 SC 1144), Ambalal Sarabhai and Ors. v. Phiroz H. Antia (AIR 1939 Bombay 35) and Lennox Arthur Patrick O' Reilly and Ors....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst anyone connected with the IPL. This procedure includes establishment of a 'Disciplinary Procedure Commission' to hear and decide such matters. The Commission is in terms of Rule 6.2.2 to comprise three members of the IPL Code of Behaviour Committee to be selected by the BCCI. It is also clear from Rules 6.3.1 to 6.3.21 that the Commission is required to follow a fair and reasonable procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice. In terms of Rule 6.3.19 standard of proof can vary between balance of probability and proof beyond a reasonable doubt depending upon the seriousness of the allegations being examined by the Commission. What is important is that the Commission is not in terms of Regulation 6.3.20 bound by strict rules of evidence and that facts relating to any offence can be established by any reliable means including admissions. This procedure can and indeed ought to be followed in cases where there is no real or compelling justification for a departure. Two distinct aspects all the same need be kept in mind in the case at hand. The first is that even the BCCI had not adhered to the prescribed procedure in the present case. Instead of constitutin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... finding to be conclusive giving a quietus to the controversy. It was not as though the finding of the Committee comprising two former Judges of the Madras High Court was meant to be some kind of a preliminary report which would require scrutiny or examination by the Disciplinary Procedure Commission before a clean chit was given to the individuals concerned. If that be so, it is difficult to countenance the argument that IPL Operational Rules had any further role to play in the matter of an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the persons concerned. It is equally difficult to appreciate how the significance of the reports submitted by the Probe Committee set up by this Court could be undermined simply because the IPL Operational Rules provide for a Disciplinary Procedure Commission with a particular composition. We have in that view no hesitation in rejecting the contention urged by M/s. Naphade and Desai that the procedure prescribed by the IPL Operational Rules must be followed despite all that has transpired till now or that the report submitted by Justice Mudgal Committee was of no value except that it could provided a basis for setting the Disciplinary Procedure into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilty of betting. Our answer to that question is in the affirmative. Admittedly, Mr. Raj Kundra was heard by the Committee before concluding that he had indulged in betting. Absence of any notice to anyone else was of little consequence so long as the person concerned was duly notified and afforded a fair opportunity. To that extent, therefore, the grievance sought to be projected by the Jaipur IPL Private Ltd. regarding absence of any notice need be noticed only to be rejected. 43. There was no serious challenge to the findings recorded by the Probe Committee on the merits of the findings against Mr. Raj Kundra. Mr. Desai appearing for Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Ltd., no doubt, contended that the finding was based on certain assumptions, but we do not see any merit in those contentions. Even otherwise strict rules of evidence do not have any application to an enquiry like the one entrusted to the Probe Committee or contemplated by IPL Operational Rules. The essence of the rules applicable even to the Disciplinary Commission is that it ought to adopt a fair and reasonable procedure while enquiring into the allegations of misconduct. Rule 6.3.19 of the Operational Rules specifical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal cannot be questioned so long as the Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction or acted dishonestly or in bad faith. This Court summed up the principles applicable in the following words: 9. The following principles may be gathered from the above discussion. (1) A member of a masonic lodge is bound to abide by the rules of the lodge; and if the rules provide for expulsion, he shall be expelled only in the manner provided by the rules. (2) The lodge is bound to act strictly according to the rules whether a particular rule is mandatory or directory falls to be decided in each case, having regard to the well settled rules of construction in that regard. (3) The jurisdiction of a civil court is rather limited; it cannot obviously sit as a court of appeal from decisions of such a body; it can set aside the order of such a body, if the said body acts without jurisdiction or does not act in good faith or acts in violation of the principles of natural justice as explained in the decisions cited supra. 45. The present appeals do not arise from a suit as was the position in T.P. Daver's case (supra). More importantly, the present appeals arise out of writ proceedings ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le action in terms of the IPL Operational Rules: 48. In Section I of the IPL Operational Rules are defined different expressions used in the said Rules. Sections 2 and 4 stipulate obligations of the franchisees and team/players while Section 6 thereof prescribes Regulations and disciplinary procedure which, inter alia, includes under Section 6.1 sanctions that can be imposed for acts of misconduct if any committed. The relevant provisions of IPL Operational Rules effective from 15th March, 2013 are as under: SECTION 1 - DEFINITIONS 1.1 In these Operational Rules (unless the context requires otherwise) the following expressions shall have the following meanings: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Franchisee means an entity which has entered into a Franchise Agreement with BCCI; Franchise Agreement means an agreement between BCCI and a third party (a Franchisee) under which such Franchisee as agreed to filed a Team in the league and pursuant to which such Franchisee enjoys certain rights and has assumed certain obligations as set out therein and as contemplated by these Operational Rules; xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er accredited for the League by BCCI either centrally or locally, shall be deemed to be a Team Official for the purpose of the Regulations. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx SECTION 6 - REGULATIONS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE 6.1 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 6.1.1 The provisions of the Regulations listed in paragraph 1.2 of this Section (being the IPL Regulations) together with these Operational Rules shall apply to the League and bind any person subject to these Operational Rules such that they shall be bound to comply with such of them as apply to each such Person. 6.1.2 The IPL Regulations referred to in paragraph 1.1 above are as follows; (i)........... ..................... ..................... (viii) the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials; ..................... ..................... (xiv) the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants; (xv) the IPL Auction Briefing; (xvi) BCCI's Minimum Standards for Players and Match Officials Areas at Matches. (xvii) any other code as may be issued by BCCI from time to time which s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of such person, any team, any player, any team official, the BCCI, the league and/or the game or which would otherwise bring any of the foregoing into disrepute. More importantly, each franchisee is in terms of Rule 4.1.1 under an obligation to ensure that each of its team official complies with the Regulations, and in particular Article 2 of the BCCI and Anti-Corruption Code. The rule, however, provides that all those persons who are accredited for the league by BCCI either centrally or locally, shall be deemed to be team officials for the purposes of those Regulations. In terms of Regulation 6.4 (supra) BCCI can impose any one of the sanctions enumerated thereunder which includes suspension of the player or other person subject to the Operational Rules from playing or involving in matches for a specified period and suspension of the team or franchisee from the league. Payment of money from a person subject to these Operational Rules either to BCCI or to any other person subject to those rules is also provided as one of the permissible sanctions. 50. The upshot of the above discussion is that once Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra are accepted as team officials, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the development of corrupt betting practices. That, in turn, increases the risk that attempts will be made to involve participants in such practices. Even where that risk is more theoretical than practical, its consequence is to create a perception that the integrity of the sport is under threat. 1.1.4 Furthermore, the nature of this type of misconduct is such that it is carried out under cover and in secret, thereby creating significant challenges for the BCCI in the enforcement of rules of conduct. As a consequence, the BCCI needs to be empowered to seek information from and share information with competent authorities and other relevant third parties, and to require Participants to cooperate fully with all investigations and requests for information. 1.1.5 The BCCI is committed to taking every step in its power to prevent corrupt betting practices undermining the integrity of the sport of cricket, including any efforts to influence improperly the outcome or any other aspect of any Match or Event. (Emphasis supplied) 52. In Appendix 1 to the Anti-Corruption Code for Participants are given definitions for different terms appearing in the said Code inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e bodies in any International Match or Domestic Match. Player Support Personnel. Any coach, trainer, manager, selector, team official, doctor, physiotherapist or any other person employed by, representing or otherwise affiliated to a playing/touring team or squad that is chosen to represent a National Cricket Federation in any Domestic Match or International Match or series of such Matches. Suspension. Means the Participant is temporarily barred from participating in the sport of cricket pending a decision on the allegation that he/she has committed an offence under this Anti-Corruption Code, as set out more specifically in Article 4.6. 53. In terms of Article 2 appearing in the Code of Anti-Corruption, betting, misuse of inside information are some of the actionable wrongs under the Code. Article 2 reads: ARTICLE 2 - OFFENCES UNDER THIS ANTI-CORRUPTION CODE 2.2.1 CORRUPTION 2.2.1 Fixing or contriving in any way or otherwise influencing improperly, or being a part to any effort to fix or contrive in any way or otherwise influence improperly, the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any Match or Event. 2.1.2 Seekin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(a) any Participant to commit an offence under any of the foregoing provisions of this Article 2.3 and/or (b) any other person to do any act that would be an offence if that person were a Participant. 2.4 GENERAL 2.4.1 Providing or receiving any gift, payment or other benefit (whether of a monetary value or otherwise) in circumstances that the Participant might reasonably have expected could bring him/her or the sport of cricket into disrepute. NOTE: This Article is only intended to catch 'disrepute' that, when considered in all of the relevant circumstances, relates (directly or indirectly) to any of the underlying imperatives of and conduct prohibited by this Anti-Corruption Code (including as described in Article 1.1.) Where any substantial gift, payment or other benefit is received by any Participant from an unknown person or organisation and/or for no apparent reason, such Participant is advised to report such receipt to the Designated Anti-Corruption Official (or his/her designee). Where such Participant does not make such a report, then that is likely to constitute strong evidence of the commission of this offence. 2.4.2 F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e liable accordingly under this Anti-Corruption Code. 54. Sanctions prescribed Under Article 6 of the Code include suspension ranging from six months to a lifetime depending upon the nature and gravity of the offence/misconduct proved against the person concerned. Article 6 runs as under: 6.1 Where it is determined that an offence under this Anti-Corruption Code has been committed, the BCCI Disciplinary Committee will be required to impose an appropriate sanction upon the Participant from the range of permissible sanctions described in Article 6.2. In order to determine the appropriate sanction that is to be imposed in each case, the BCCI Disciplinary Committee must first determine the relative seriousness of the offence, including identifying all relevant factors that it deems to: 6.1.1 aggravate the nature of the offence under this Anti-Corruption Code, namely: 6.1.1.4 where the offence substantially damaged (or had the potential to damage substantially) the commercial value and/or the public interest in the relevant Match(es) or Event(s); 6.1.1.5 where the offence affected (or had the potential to affect) the result of the relevant Match(es) or E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... maximum of five (5) years. Articles 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 (as it relates to an offence under Article 2.3.2) (Misuse of inside information) A minimum of six (6) months and a maximum of five (5) years. Articles 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 (General) A minimum of one (1) year and a maximum of five (5) years). Articles 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 Articles 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 55. It is manifest that Article 2.2.1 treats betting as one of the actionable wrongs under the Code. In terms of Article 2.5.2 the participant who authorises, causes, knowingly assists, encourages, aids, abets, covers up or is otherwise complicit in any act or omission of the types described in Articles 2.1 to 2.4 committed by his/her coach, trainer, manager, agent, family member, guest or other associate shall be treated as having committed such an act or omission himself and shall be liable accordingly under the Anti-Corruption Code. The expression 'participant' has been defined to include any player, player support personnel, Umpire, match Referee or Umpire Support Personnel. The expression 'player support personnel' means any coach trainer, manager, selector, team official, doctor etc. Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epending upon the seriousness and context of the breach) be prohibited Under Article 2.4.4. 58. The team official who is found guilty of betting is certainly acting against the spirit of the game and bringing disrepute to it. Article 7 of the Code empowers the match Referee or the Commissioner to impose suitable sanction upon the person concerned depending upon the level of the offence which is committed. The punishment can range between warning to suspension for a lifetime depending upon the nature and the gravity of the offence committed. 59. We may, before parting with the discussion on this question, refer to the Franchise Agreement executed between BCCI on the one hand and the franchisees on the other. Clause 11.3 of the said agreement reads: 11.3 BCCI-IPL may terminate this Agreement with immediate effect by written notice if: (a) there is a Change of Control of the Franchise (whether direct or indirect) and/or a Listing which in each case does not occur strictly in accordance with Clause 10; (b) the Franchisee transfers any material part of its business or assets to any other person other than in accordance with Clause 10; (c) the Fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the arrest of Gurunath Meiyappan. The setting up of the Committee by Mr. Srinivasan was aimed at giving Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan a clean chit and along with him a clean chit to ICL owned by Mr. Srinivasan and his family. (ii) The Committee got reduced to two members only, after resignation of Mr. Jagdale, but was asked to continue the probe which was over within a day resulting in an all clear report in favour of Gurunath Meiyappan. The Committee opined that there was no material laid before it to substantiate the allegation that Gurunath Meiyappan was betting. The Appellant association alleges that the BCCI then headed by Mr. Srinivasan did not do anything to make good the charge of betting leveled against Gurunath Meiyappan, not because it could not do so but because it was not interested in doing so. Any attempt to prove the allegation would have led to Gurunath Meiyappan being found guilty, which would in turn lead to cancellation of the franchise held by ICL owned by Srinivasan. (iii) Before the Mudgal Probe Committee, representatives of India Cements appeared to assert that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan had no share holding in ICL thereby withholding information that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p. We cannot, therefore, with any amount of certainty, say that the charge of attempted cover up leveled against Mr. Srinivasan stands proved. Our answer to question No. 4 is, therefore, in the negative. Re: Question No. 5: 66. Amendment to Rule 6.2.4 was assailed before the High Court of Bombay on three principal grounds. The first was that the amendment was mala fide inasmuch as the whole object underlying the same was to protect the grant of Chennai Franchise to Mr. Srinivasan's India Cements Ltd. which was as on the date of the grant in clear breach of Rule 6.2.4 as it existed before its amendment. As treasurer of BCCI Mr. Srinivasan was an administrator who could neither acquire nor hold any commercial interest in any BCCI event including IPL, Champions League & Twenty-20 tournaments as all these tournaments are fundamentally BCCI events. Suit filed by Mr. Muthiah had no doubt brought up the question of conflict of interest, in breach of Rule 6.2.4 but the challenge was sought to be neutralized by amending the rule itself and taking the three events mentioned above out of the mischief of Rule 6.2.4 67. The second limb of the challenge to the amendment was that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and standards as would apply to any similar provision emanating from a statute or the general executive power of the State. 70. Rule 6.2.4 before amendment was in the following words: No Administrators shall have, directly or indirectly, any commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the Board. 71. The impugned amendment added the following words at the end of the above Rule: excluding events like IPL or Champions League Twenty 20. 72. It is common ground that the validity of the impugned amendment to Rule 6.2.4 shall have to be tested on a threefold basis viz. (i) whether the amendment is made by the authority competent to do so; (ii) whether the authority competent to bring about an amendment has followed the procedure prescribed for the same; and (iii) whether the amendment falls foul of any statute or principle of law, violation whereof cannot be countenanced. 73. Seen in the light of the Articles of Association, we find no infirmity in the amendment to Rule 6.2.4 in so far as the legislative competence (if we may use that expression) of the authority that brought about the amendment is concerned. It is nobody's case that the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as quasi judicial in nature. The question there arose in the context of a selection process in which Naqishbund who was a member of the Selection Committee was himself a candidate alongwith others for induction into the Indian Forest Service. The challenge was founded on the plea that there was a conflict between the duty which Naqishbund was required to perform as a member of the selection Committee and his interest as a candidate for selection. In defence of his role and the selection made by the Committee it was argued that the Selection Committee discharged Administrative functions to which the principles of natural justice had no application. Repelling the contention this Court held that horizons of natural justice were constantly expanding, and that the principles apply only in areas not covered by any law validly made. The Court observed: 20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e selection board. It is true that ordinarily the Chief Conservator of Forests in a State should be considered as the most appropriate person to be in the selection board. He must be expected to know his officers thoroughly, their weaknesses as well as their strength. His opinion as regards their suitability for selection to the All-India Service is entitled to great weight. But then under the circumstances it was improper to have included Naqishbund as a member of the selection board. He was one of the persons to be considered for selection. It is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause. It is true that he did not participate in the deliberations of the committee when his name was considered. But then the very fact that he was a member of the selection board must have had its own impact on the decision of the selection board. Further admittedly he participated in the deliberations of the selection board when the claims of his rivals particularly that of Basu was considered. He was also party to the preparation of the list of selected candidates in order of preference. At every stage of his participation in the deliberations of the selection board there w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of that article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is a violation of Article 14: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of State in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. In such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and impartially. (Emphasis supplied) 78. There is no gainsaying that in the ever expanding horizons of the principles of natural justice, it makes little or practically no difference whether the action or the nature of the proceedings being tested are administrative or quasi-judicial. The principles apply to either more....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing provision permit acts and transactions which would by their very nature bring about a conflict of interest. Our answer is in the negative. It is one thing to say that conflict may arise even when rules do not specifically permit such a conflict situation and a totally different thing to permit acts which will per se bring about such a conflict. The case at hand falls in the latter category. Rule 6.2.4 after amendment, permits creation of commercial interests in the events organized by BCCI by its Administrators. This enabling provision disregards the potential conflict of interest which will arise between an administrator's duty as a functionary of the BCCI on the one hand and his interest as the holder of any such commercial interest on the other. The Respondents may argue as indeed they have done, that commercial interest held by India Cements Ltd. in the IPL and other events do not constitute a conflict per se so as to fall foul of the principle that such conflicts are impermissible on the touchstone of fairness, reasonableness and probity in the discharge of public functions by the BCCI. But that contention is specious and deserves notice only to be rejected. Three real....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty on the one hand and interest on the other. Mr. Sibal, no doubt, argued that this amount was returned by ICL subsequently, but such return, does not improve the matters. The decision to award an amount higher than the one awarded earlier appears to have led to public criticism raising the pitch further for Mr. Srinivasan's removal from the BCCI on the principles of conflict of interest. Return of the amount because of a public outcry may no doubt mean that Mr. Srinivasan tried to come clean on the subject even when his company may have suffered a loss, but it may as well mean that the return of the amount came only under public pressure and in recognition of the fact that the amount was not actually due and payable and yet was paid to the detriment of BCCI who is a trustee of general public interest in the sport of cricket and everything that goes with it. 83. The third instance where Mr. Srinivasan's commercial interest came in direct conflict with his duty as President of BCCI is when allegations of betting were leveled against his son-in-law Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan. Even ignoring for a moment the argument that Mr. Srinivasan had made a deliberate attempt to cover up ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., however, deterred jurists and Courts from explaining the expression from very early times. Mathew J. speaking for the Court in Murlidhar Aggarwal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1974) 2 SCC 472 referred to Winfield's definition in Public Policy in English Common Law 42 Harvard Law Review 76 to declare that: 31. Public policy does not remain static in any given community. It may vary from generation to generation and even in the same generation. Public policy would be almost useless if it were to remain in fixed moulds for all time. 86. The Court then grappled with the problem of ascertaining public policy if the same is variable and depends on the welfare of the community and observed: 32. If it is variable, if it depends on the welfare of the community at any given time, how are the courts to ascertain it? The Judges are more to be trusted as interpreters of the law than as expounders of public policy. However, there is no alternative under our system but to vest this power with Judges. The difficulty of discovering what public policy is at any given moment certainly does not absolve the Judges from the duty of doing so. In conducting an enquiry, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e public interest. The concept of what is for the public good or in the public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or the public interest has varied from time to time. As new concepts take the place of old, transactions which were once considered against public policy are now being upheld by the courts and similarly where there has been a well-recognized head of public policy, the courts have not shirked from extending it to new transactions and changed circumstances and have at times not even flinched from inventing a new head of public policy. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is thus clear that the principles governing public policy must be and are capable, on proper occasion, of expansion or modification. Practices which were considered perfectly normal at one time have today become obnoxious and oppressive to public conscience. If there is no head of public policy which covers a case, then the court must in consonance with public conscience and in keeping with public good and public interest declare such practice to be opposed to public policy. Above all, in deciding any case which may not be covered by authority our courts have before them the beacon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pposed to public policy and is required to be adjudged void. 89. In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Western GECO International Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 263, this Court was examining the meaning of 'Fundamental Policy of Indian Law' an expression used by this Court in Saw Pipes' case (supra). Extending the frontiers of what will constitute 'Public Policy of India' this Court observed: "35. What then would constitute the "fundamental policy of Indian law" is the question. The decision in ONGC does not elaborate that aspect. Even so, the expression must, in our opinion, include all such fundamental principles as provide a basis for administration of justice and enforcement of law in this country. Without meaning to exhaustively enumerate the purport of the expression "fundamental policy of Indian law", we may refer to three distinct and fundamental juristic principles that must necessarily be understood as a part and parcel of the fundamental policy of Indian law. The first and foremost is the principle that in every determination whether by a court or other authority that affects the rights of a citizen or leads to any civil consequences, the court or authority concerned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that fall short of the standards of reasonableness are open to challenge in a court of law often in writ jurisdiction of the superior courts but no less in statutory processes wherever the same are available." 90. To sum up: Public Policy is not a static concept. It varies with times and from generation to generation. But what is in public good and public interest cannot be opposed to public policy and vice-versa. Fundamental Policy of Law would also constitute a facet of public policy. This would imply that all those principles of law that ensure justice, fair play and bring transparency and objectivity and promote probity in the discharge of public functions would also constitute public policy. Conversely any deviation, abrogation, frustration or negation of the salutary principles of justice, fairness, good conscience, equity and objectivity will be opposed to public policy. It follows that any rule, contract or arrangement that actually defeats or tends to defeat the high ideals of fairness and objectivity in the discharge of public functions no matter by a private non-governmental body will be opposed to public policy. Applied to the case at hand Rule 6.2.4 to the extent, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g no discretion with any official of the BCCI. The commercial interest of an administrator in the IPL can never be in conflict with the administrator's duty in the BCCI argued Mr. Sibal. That apart, every franchise is treated equally since the contractual obligation with the BCCI is identical for each franchise leaving no possibility of differential treatment by BCCI. It was also argued that IPL is Distinct from other matches/events conducted by the BCCI so that there is no question of any conflict of interest between the role of a person as an administrator of BCCI and an owner of an IPL franchise. The following distinguishing features were in this regard relied upon: (i) IPL is not a tournament to test the players' ability to play representative cricket since the record of each player in the IPL is not considered for National Selections. IPL is only a platform provided to cricketers - both Indian and International, to make a living from the sport outside of playing representative cricket, which is not as remunerative. (ii) The IPL teams revolve around a business structure and each team is formed pursuant to winning a franchise for a particular stadium in a co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g team. So also the contention that, IPL being a commercial venture of BCCI and a platform for Indian and International cricketers to make a living from the sport, is neither here nor there. No one has found fault with IPL as a format, nor is there any challenge to the wisdom of BCCI in introducing this format for the benefit of cricketers or for its own benefit. The question is whether the BCCI can afford to see the game lose its credibility in the eyes of those who watch it, by allowing an impression to gather ground that what goes on in the name of the game is no more than a farce because of sporting frauds like betting, match fixing and the like. Can the BCCI live with the idea of the game being seen only as a means to cheat the unsuspecting and gullible spectators watching the proceedings whether in the stadium or on the television with the passion one rarely sees in any other sporting enterprise. BCCI's commercial plans for its own benefit and the benefit of the players are bound to blow up in smoke, if the people who watch and support the game were to lose interest or be indifferent because, they get to know that some business interests have hijacked the game for their own e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot involved in group fight leading to litigation and the objectives of the Society have been lost sight of. The representation of India in the IOA has been in jeopardy. The grooming of amateurs has been thrown to the winds and the responsibility placed on the Society has not been responded. This, therefore, does not appear to us to be a situation where rights to office will have to be worked out by referring to the provisions of the law relating to meetings, injunction and rights appurtenant to elective offices. What seems to be of paramount importance is that healthy conditions must be restored as early as possible into the working of the Society and a fresh election has to be held as that seems to be the only way to get out of the malady." (emphasis supplied) 94. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose and Ors. (2009) 7 SCC 1, where this Court was examining the question relating to qualities required for appointment of a candidate as President of the State Consumer Commission. The petitioner was in that case found unfit to be appointed as a permanent Judge of the High Court. The question was whether his being unsuitable for appointment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BCCI is managing its affairs. 97. It was lastly argued by Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for BCCI that if administrators were held to be disentitled to have any commercial interest in BCCI events including IPL, the same may adversely affect not only the IPL format but certain outstanding sports persons who by reason of their proficiency in cricket and its affairs are often engaged as coaches, mentors, commentators or on similar other positions may also be rendered disqualified to get such engagements. This would mean that the teams will lose the advantage of having these outstanding sports persons on their side while the sport persons will lose the opportunity to earn a livelihood only because they hold or have at an earlier point of time held an administrative office in BCCI. Such an interpretation or disqualification would not be in the interest of the game or those who have distinguished themselves in the same, argued Mr. Sundaram. 98. The expression 'Administrator' appearing in Rule 6.2.4 has been defined to mean and include present and past Presidents, Honorary Secretaries, Honorary Treasures, Honorary Joint Secretaries of the BCCI. Presidents and Secretaries prese....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made any investment like India Cements Ltd. has done in acquiring a franchise or in any other form. Be that as it may, we do not consider it necessary or even proper to authoritatively pronounce upon the question whether such engagement of players, as are mentioned above, would fall foul of the prohibition contained in Rule 6.2.4 as it stood before amendment. The issue may be examined as and when the same arises directly for consideration. All that we need say at this stage is that whether or not a player who is an 'administrator' by reason of an existing or earlier assignment held by him can acquire or hold a commercial interest in any BCCI event, will depend upon the nature of the interest that such person has acquired and whether the same is purely professional or has any commercial element to it. Beyond that we do not propose to say anything at this stage. Question No. 5 is accordingly answered in the affirmative and Amendment to Rule 6.2.4 permitting Administrators of BCCI to acquire or hold commercial interests in BCCI like IPL, champions league and T-20 held to be bad for the reasons we have set out in the foregoing paras. Re: Question No.6: 99. Mr. Sundar Raman in hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Raman has specifically denied having any knowledge about the activities of Vindoo Dara Singh and his contacts. Based on certain call records produced by Mr. Sundar Raman, it is claimed that there were only 5 calls between the two of them during a period of ten months and that making or receiving such calls was a part of his job as the Chief Operating Officer of IPL. 103. The other allegation against Mr. Sundar Raman was that even though he had received information that a number of owners/team officials were involved in betting yet he had taken no action in the matter. When asked about the correctness of this accusation, Mr. Sundar Raman appears to have argued that it was Mr. V.P. Singh who had verbally informed him about reports alleging that a number of owners/team officials were involved in betting on IPL matches but Mr. V.P. Singh is also alleged to have told Mr. Sundar Raman that the information was not actionable. 104. From a reading of the report submitted by the investigating team, we find that the team intended to request Mr. Virk to join the investigation and part with the information with him regarding Mr. Sundar Raman's proximity to Vindoo Dara Singh, the alleged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er part of this judgment. Re: Question No.7: 106. We have while answering Questions No.2 and 3 held Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra to be guilty of betting. We have also while answering those questions held that the misconduct against these two individuals is actionable as per the relevant rules to which we have referred in detail. Not only that, we have held that action under the rules can also be taken against the franchisees concerned. We have noticed that that the quantum of sanction/punishment can vary depending upon the gravity of the misconduct of the persons committing the same. 107. One of the issues that would fall for determination in the light of these findings would be whether we should impose a suitable punishment ourselves or leave it to the BCCI to do the needful. Having given our anxious consideration to that aspect we are of the view that neither of these two courses would be appropriate. We say so because the power to punish for misconduct vests in the BCCI. We do not consider it proper to clutch at the jurisdiction of BCCI to impose a suitable punishment. At the same time we do not think that in a matter like this the award of a suitable punis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le amendment of the relevant Rules and Regulations, which the Committee may consider necessary to make with a view to preventing sporting frauds, conflict of interests, streamlining the working of BCCI to make it more responsive to the expectations of the public at large and to bring transparency in practices and procedures followed by BCCI. 110. In the result we pass the following order: (I) 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 judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay in PIL No.107 of 2013 is resultantly set aside and the said writ petition allowed to the extent indicated above. (II) The quantum of punishment to be imposed on Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra as also their respective franchisees/teams/owners of the teams shall be determined by a Committee comprising the following: i) Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India - Chairman. ii) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, former Judge, Supreme Court of India - Member. iii) Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge, S....