S. SREESANTH versus THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 765 · Decided: 15-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
S. SREESANTH
v.
THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2424 of  2019)
MARCH 15, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Cricket:  Spot fixing – Ban for life – Plea of violation of rules
of natural justice – In the instant case, appellant was registered
player and participated in IPL match – Allegation against the
appellant was that in the match played on 09.05.2013 between
Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab at Mohali, in exchange of
Rs.10 lakh, he agreed to concede 14 or more runs in the second
over of bowling spell – One-man Commission which was
constituted by BCCI on direction of Supreme Court submitted a
Preliminary report – The report relied on the video clipping and
recordings of telephone conversation and opined that there was
sufficient evidence against the appellant to prove him guilty of
various Articles of Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI – The report also
stated that the Commissioner had no access to the appellant as he
was in police custody – After the appellant was released from
police custody, he appeared before the Commissioner and gave his
statement – Thereafter the Commissioner submitted Supplementary
report accusing the appellant of offences under the
Anti-Corruption Code – Disciplinary Committee heard the
appellant and communicated its decision of banning him from
playing or representing for life – Appellant raised plea that
principles of natural justice was violated as the transcripts of
telephone conversation relied by the Disciplinary Committee of the
BCCI was not provided to him and further he was not confronted
with  transcript of the  telephone conversation relied on by it –
Held: The transcripts of telephone conversations were received by
the  appellant from the Police much before issuance of the
show-cause notice by the Disciplinary Committee – The submission
of  Preliminary Report without taking statement of the appellant
was in the circumstances that the appellant was in the Police
custody and under the order of Supreme Court, the Commissioner
   [2019] 4 S.C.R. 765
765
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
had to submit report within 15 days – When the appellant was
released from the custody, his statement was duly taken and after
considering his statement further Supplementary Report was
submitted – In the show-cause notice with respect to the material
relied by the Disciplinary Committee, the appellant was given full
opportunity to have his say – Thus, there was no violation of
principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Committee –
Doctrines/Principles – Natural Justice.
Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Allegation of
betting, bringing disrepute to the game and failure to disclose to
the ACU BCCI full details of any approaches and invitations to
engage in conduct that amounted to breach of the Code – Whether
Disciplinary Authority was right in holding that there were
sufficient materials to hold the appellant guilty of offences of
corruption under various articles of Anti-corruption Code – Held:
There being specific allegations made against the appellant in the
show-cause notice, it was incumbent on the appellant to have
explained the evidence and circumstances which were sought to be
relied against the appellant – In the disciplinary proceedings a
delinquent has to explain circumstances and evidence relied against
him – It is true that the charges have to be proved by the BCCI for
taking any action under the Anti-Corruption Code – The
Disciplinary Committee of the BCCI had jurisdiction to form its own
opinion after considering the evidence on record including the
telephonic conversation and other evidence on the record – The
conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Committee on the basis of the
material  cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity which
may warrant judicial review by the constitutional courts – Judicial
Review.
Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Article 3.1 – Whether
the Disciplinary Committee has rightly placed burden of proof on
the appellant whereas according to Anti-Corruption Code under
Article 3.1, the burden of proof was on the designated
Anti-Corruption Official and whether by wrongly placing the
burden of proof the Disciplinary Committee has erred in recording
its conclusion – Held: Article 3.1 deals with burden of proof and
standard of proof – The initial burden of proof is on the Designated
Anti-Corruption Official i.e. Disciplinary Committee which has to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7

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