The Supreme Court in its seminal judgment in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar has come down heavily on the malpractices and conflict of interests of
those who not only hold positions of influence in the BCCI but also own
franchises and teams competing in the IPL format that have left many cricketing enthusiasts
and followers of the game worried and deeply suspicious about what goes on in
the name of the game in India.
 |
| N Srinivasan has been barred from contesting the upcoming elections to the BCCI by the Supreme Court unless he is prepared to give up his ownership of the Chennai Super Kings |
In
a judgment delivered on Thursday by a Bench consisting of Justice TS Thakur and
Fakir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifullah, the Supreme Court has struck a blow to N
Srinivasan’s role in Indian cricket by effectively asking the sidelined BCCI
president to choose between his role in the board and his ownership of the
Chennai Super Kings franchise. Srinivasan has been barred from contesting in
the board's elections - which the court ordered to be held in the next six
weeks - until he gives up his commercial interest in Chennai Super Kings
franchise.
Adjudicating
on the legality of the constitution of a committee of 2 retired judges of the
Madras High Court constituted by the BCCI to investigate charges of corruption
in the 2013 spot-fixing case, the Court struck down the BCCI's controversial amendment
to Rule 6.2.4 of its Rules that allowed board officials to have commercial
interests in the IPL and the Champions League T20, calling it "the true villain of the situation at
hand." This amendment, inserted into the BCCI constitution in 2008
after the IPL had been formed, had made it possible for Srinivasan to be a BCCI
official and a franchise owner.
The Court however gave Srinivasan a clean chit insofar as the allegations against him of a 'cover-up' in the betting scandal was concerned.
What are the implications of the Apex Court judgment
on N Srinivasan, the IPL franchises, and the BCCI?
Here's presenting a detailed analysis of the judgment:
The background facts:
Two writ
petitions were filed in public interest by the Cricket Association of Bihar
before the High Court of Bombay for several reliefs including a direction to
the BCCI to recall its order constituting a probe panel comprising two retired
Judges of Madras High Court to enquire into the allegations of betting and spot
fixing in the Indian Premier League (IPL) made among others, against Gurunath
Meiyappan.
The High
Court by its order dated 30th July, 2013 granted that relief but
declined the other reliefs sought for by the petitioner, including reconstitution
of the panel to conduct an enquiry under the supervision of the High Court.
Aggrieved
by the High Court order to the extent that it declared the constitution of the
Probe Commission to be illegal and ultra vires of the relevant rules and
regulations, the BCCI preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Cricket
Association of Bihar also approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by the fact
that the High Court did not grant its prayers for removal of N. Srininivasan as
BCCI President and cancellation of the franchise favouring Chennai
Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals for the IPL matches to be conducted in future.
The
Association also challenged the validity of the amendment to Rule 6.2.4
permitting Administrators of BCCI to acquire or hold commercial interests in
the IPL and Champions League T20 tournaments.
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.”
The impugned amendment added the following words at
the end of the above Rule:
“excluding events like IPL or Champions
League Twenty 20.”
One of the main grounds of challenge to the
amendment raised by the Association was that it 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.
The
issues formulated and the findings of the Supreme Court thereon:
(1) Whether the BCCI is ‘State’ within the
meaning of Article 12 and if it is not, whether it is amenable
to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India?
The Apex
Court finding that the functions discharged by the Board are in the nature of
‘public functions’ and the Board is hence amenable to the writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the Apex court,
reaffirming the decision in Zee
Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 649 held
that BCCI is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India, as it was an autonomous body, neither created by statute nor given
financial assistance or controlled by the Government.
(2) Whether
Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were ‘team officials’ of their respective IPL
teams - Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals? If so, whether allegations of
betting levelled against them stand proved?
The Apex
Court affirmed the findings of the Probe Committee constituted by it under the
chairmanship of Justice Mudgal that Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were ‘team
officials’ of CSK and Rajasthan Royals respectively, and they had indulged in
betting.
(3) What consequential action in the nature of
punishment is permissible under the relevant Rules and Regulations, and against
whom?
The Apex
Court held that both Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra as ‘team officials’ of
CSK and Rajasthan Royals respectively were liable for imposition of sanctions
against them under Rule 6.4 of the IPL Operational Rules, which could result in
their suspension from being involved in IPL matches for a specified period or
even lead to suspension of their team itself from taking part in the
tournament. The Apex Court also said
that both Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra as ‘team officials’ of CSK and
Rajasthan Royals respectively were also liable for sanctions to be imposed by the
Disciplinary Committee of the BCCI under Article 6.2 of the Anti-Corruption
Code which has been adopted by the Board.
The Court
also said that both of them would be liable for punishment/ sanctions under the
Code
of conduct for Players and Team Officials.
The
Court further held that the BCCI-IPL could terminate the agreements with the
frachises concerned- CSK and Rajasthan Royals under Clause
11.3 of the Franchise agreement entered into between the Board and the IPL
franchise owners.
(4) Whether allegations of cover up, levelled
against Mr. N. Srinivasan stand proved?
The Court
noted that the Probe Committee constituted by it had recorded a specific
finding that the allegations of Match fixing, spot-fixing or betting were not
proved against Mr. Srinivasan in the course of the enquiry.
Accordingly,
the Court said that it could not be said with any amount of certainty that the
charge of attempted cover up leveled against Mr. Srinivasan stands proved.
(5) Whether Regulation 6.2.4 to the extent it permits
administrators to have commercial interest in the IPL, Champions League and
Twenty-20 events is legally bad?
The Apex Court found that Rule 6.2.4 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 Court
added that it is the amendment which attempts to validate what was on the date
of the award of the franchise invalid as Rule 6.2.4 did not as on that date
permit an administrator to have any commercial interest in any event organized
by BCCI.
The Court said the amendment permits situations in
which conflict of interest would grossly erode the confidence of the people in the authenticity, purity and integrity of the game and
hence unsustainable and impermissible in law.
The
Court, while striking down the amendment however said, it “may not be feasible at this stage to interfere with the award of the
franchise to ICL especially when hundreds of crores have been invested by the
franchisee”
The Court accordingly declared the amendment as
void and ineffective.
(6) Whether
allegations levelled against Mr. Sundar Raman, Chief Operating Officer IPL,
stand proved? If so, to what effect?
The Court said that the observations of the Probe
Committee under the chairmanship of Justice Mudgal regarding the role and
conduct of Mr. Sundar Raman, Chief Operating Officer IPL give rise to a serious
suspicion about his involvement in the betting affairs of the team
owners/officials apart from suggesting that having received information about
betting activities in connection with IPL matches, he remained totally inert in
the matter instead of taking suitable action warranted under the circumstances.
It said
that further investigation and probe into the activities and conduct of Mr.
Sundar Raman was warranted.
7) Orders/directions to be issued
The
Apex Court went on to constitute a 3 member Committee headed by the former
Chief Justice of India Mr. R.M. Lodha to 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 Court also asked the Committee take
a call on the quantum
of punishment to be awarded to the parties concerned after issuing notice to
all those likely to be affected and provide them an opportunity of hearing in
the matter. The Court said that the order passed by the Committee shall be
final and binding upon BCCI and the parties concerned. The Committee will have,
in addition to Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice Ashok
Bhan as its members.
The
Court, while allowing elections to the various posts in the BCCI to be held
within 6 weeks of the date of its order, forbade persons having commercial
interest from contesting the polls, “till such time the person concerned holds
such commercial interest or till the Committee considers and awards suitable
punishment to those liable for the same; whichever is later”.
The
new Committee has also been asked to "examine
and make suitable recommendations to the BCCI for such reforms in its practices
and procedures and such amendments in the Memorandum of Association, Rules and
Regulations as may be considered necessary and proper.”
The
Committee has been requested by the Court to conclude its proceedings, as far
as possible, within a period of 6 months.
***
What the
judgment means to N. Srinivasan?
The good
news for Mr. N. Srinivasan is that he has been acquitted of the charges of
cover-up leveled against him. The bad news for him however is that the charge
of having conflict of interest effectively stands proved against him. The
judgment means that he now has to choose between the BCCI
and Chennai Super Kings, and cannot continue to be the BCCI President and owner
of Chennai Super Kings at the same time.
What
does the judgment mean for the BCCI?
The
Court has directed the Board has to hold elections within six weeks. It will in
all probability have a new president, unless N. Srinivasan cuts his ties with
CSK.
What
does it mean for the IPL and more specifically, CSK and Rajasthan Royals?
There may be no immediate threat to IPL for the 2015
season as it may not be realistically possible for the Committee to conclude
its proceedings before the start of the IPL season.
The fate of the Chennai Super Kings and the
Rajasthan Royals and their participation in future edition/s of IPL, if any,
hangs in the balance right now as the Committee constituted by the Supreme
Court under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice of India, R.M. Lodha will decide
on the quantum
of punishment to be awarded to the said franchises.
