LALIT KUMAR MODI versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 1004 · Decided: 26-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1004 
LAUT KUMAR MODI 
v. 
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND 
ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27157 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 -
c Disciplinary action by society - Constitution of Disciplinary 
Committee - Challenge to - First respondent-society (BCCI) 
organized a cricket competition (IPL) - Petitioner, a member 
of first respondent, appointed as the incharge Chairman 
thereof- Rights for telecasting of the cricket games auctioned 
by first respondent - Complaint from a bidder alleging breach 
D of confidentiality against the petitioner - Petitioner suspended 
from his position and served with show cause notices -
Disciplinary Committee of respondent no. 1 entrusted with the 
function of examining the a/legations - Plea of Petitioner that 
the Disciplinary Committee was not validly constituted and 
E that since the President of BCCI had recused himself from 
the Committee, the Disciplinary Committee was required to 
either wait until the next President was elected so that the 
committee was reconstituted after including the new President 
therein, or if the Committee was to consist of three persons 
F other than the President, it should consist of persons who were 
unbiased and acceptable to the petitioner - Held: The 
petitioner himself had objected to the President being the 
member of the Committee -
That being the position, the 
President recused himself from the Committee - When a 
G situation thus arises, in view of the objection of the petitioner, 
the society cannot be left without a remedy - Also, a member 
of the society having accepted the rules, agrees to the 
disciplinary authority of the three member Committee to be 
constituted under the rules - He cannot claim a right to dictate 
H 
1004 
LAUT KUMAR MODI v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR 1005 
CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS. 
as to who should be the members of the Committee -
A 
Normally the President shall be a member of three Member 
Committee, but if for any reason his presence on the 
Committee is objected to, on grounds of unfairness, and he 
recuses himself therefrom, respondent no. 1 certainly has the 
power to substitute him by some other person - The 
B 
Committee in question was validly constituted under Rule 1 (q) 
in view of the necessity arising due to the recusal of the 
President of BCCI from the Committee - Board of Control for 
Cricket in India Rules - Rule 1 (q). 
Tamil Nadu Societies· Registration Act, 197fj -
c 
Disciplinary action by society - A/legation of institutional bias 
- First respondent-society (BCCI) organized a cricket 
competition (IPL) - Petitioner appointed as the incharge 
Chairman thereof - Rights for telecasting of the cricket games 
auctioned by first respondent - Complaint from a bidder D 
alleging breach of confidentiality against the petitioner -
Petitioner suspended from his position and served with show 
cause notices - Disciplinary Committee of respondent no. 1 
entrusted with the function of examining the allegations - Plea 
of Petitioner that the members of the Committee suffered from 
an institutional bias and that the petitioner could not expect 
E 
fairplay from the members who were already party to the 
decision to initiate the disciplinary action against the petitioner 
- Held: Merely because all the members of a society 
participated in the discussion concerning the allegations, the 
Society can't be expected to appoint an outsider to hold the 
F 
disciplinary proceeding - Again, merely because a member 
has participated in such a meeting he cannot be accused of 
bias to disentitle him from being appointed on the Disciplinary 
Committee - The petitioner may have an apprehension of 
bias, but it is not possible to say from the material on record 
G 
that he was facing a real danger of bias - One cannot 
presume that the three member committee will not afford the 
petitioner a fair hearing, or that it will not render unbiased 
findings - Taking a view as canvassed by the petitioner will 
lead to a demand for interference in the enquiries conducted 
by all other societies in such situations, and that cannot be H 
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADOL.) S.C.R 
A approved. 
Doctrines - Doctrine of necessity - Held: The doctrine 
of necessity is a common law doctrine, and is applied to tide 
over the situations where there are difficulties - Law does not 
contemplate a vacuum, and a solu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.