LexBCCI versus CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 165 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 JANUARY 22, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A s. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 12 - BCCI - Whether 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and if not whether C amenable to writ jurisdiction u!Article 226 - Held: BCCI discharge several important public functions and is thus is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court u/Article 226 even when it is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. D Sporting frauds: Match fixing and betting - Whether Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were 'team officials' of their respective IPL teams - Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals and whether a/legations of betting levelled against them stood proved - E Held: The Probe Committee, recorded a specific finding that Meiyappan was working/associated with the IPL as team official of the CSK - That Meiyappan was a team official of CSK owned by India Cements Ltd. was not disputed by either India Cements Ltd. or any other party - The Probe Committee F on the basis of the further investigation and enquiry further held that Raj Kundra. was a 'team official', a 'player s_µpport personnel' and 'participant' within the meaning of the _re1evant rules and that he had indulged in betting - Given the nature of the proceedings entrusted to the Probe Committee and the G standard of proof applicable to the same, then~ is no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Probe Committee - The material assembled in the course of the investigation by the Probe Committee provided a reasonably safe basis for 165 H 166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A holding that the accusations made against Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra stood established on a preponderance of probabilities - The finding was by no means without basis or perverse to call for interference with the same - The misconduct against these two individuals as also their B respective franchisees/teams/owners is actionable under the Rules - Three-member Committee constituted to determine the quantum of punishment - IPL Operational Rules - Code of Conduct for Players and the Team Official - Anti Corruption Code - Betting. c Match fixing and betting - Whether allegation of cover up against Srinivasan stood proved - Held: The Probe Committee recorded a specific finding that the a/legations of Match fixing, spot-fixing or betting were not proved against Srinivasan in the course of the enquiry - Srinivasan had even D stepped aside while the probe was on to avoid any accusation being made against him - Similarly, the allegation that an effort was made to suppress facts before the Probe Committee or that Gurunath was shown only as a cricket e11thusiast whereas he was a team official, .may, at best, raise a suspicion E against Srinivasan but suspicion cannot be taken as proof to hold him guilty of the alleged cover up - Therefore, it cannot be said that the charge of attempted cover up leveled against Srinivasan stood proved. F Match fixing and betting - Whether a/legations levelled against Sundar Raman, Chief Operating Officer IPL, stood proved - Held: The report submitted by the investigating team and the Probe Committee did not indict Sundar Raman in clear words - The observ<Itions made regarding his role and G conduct simply gave 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 - Therefore, the. H BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. 167 CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR allegations made against him cannot go un-probed, even if A it means a further investigation by the investigating team provided to the Probe Committee or by any other means - Three-member Committee constituted to also examine the role played by Sundar Raman. IPL Regulations: r.6.2.4 - Amendment to r.6.2.4 B . permitting Administrators of BCCI to acquire or hold commercial interests in BCCJ like IPL, champions league and T-20 - Propriety of - Held: r. 6. 2. 4 to the extent, it permits, protects and even perpetuates situations where the Administrators can have commercial interests in breach or C conflict
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.