THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA versus CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 519 · Decided: 14-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
519
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 519
519
THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA
v.
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS
(IA No. 49930 of 2020)
In
(Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Sports: BCCI – Interim application filed by BCCI seeking the
leave of this Court to give effect to certain amendments in their
Constitution – Held: With regard to amendment in Clause 6(4) of
the existing Constitution which contains the stipulation that an office
bearer who has held any post for two consecutive terms either in a
state association or in the BCCI or a combination of both shall not
be eligible to contest any further election without completing a
cooling off period of three years – BCCI seeking the requirement of
a cooling off period to confine only to the posts of President and
Secretary – The amicus curiae proposed a bifurcation of the existing
provision by introducing similar requirements of cooling off periods
both at the level of the BCCI and in the state associations – The
purpose for which the cooling off period was introduced, would
not be diluted by the proposed amendment, subject to the stipulations
suggested by the amicus curiae – The proposed stipulation that the
cooling off period comes into effect after two consecutive terms at
the same level namely, at the state associations or the BCCI does
not abrogate the purpose of a cooling off period – Hence, the
suggestions stipulated by amicus curia accepted – With regard to
amendment in Clause 6(5) which states the grounds of
disqualification from being an office bearer, a member of the
governing council or any Committee or a representative to the
International Cricket Council or any similar organization – The
stipulation that the disqualification should attach on a conviction
of an offence was accepted – However, the further condition that a
disqualification would follow upon a sentence of imprisonment of
three years or more not accepted – Certain other amendments were
sought on the basis of above amendments, hence, accepted.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
Disposing of the interim application, the Court
HELD: 1. The existing position is that: (i) A person who is
elected as an office bearer in a state association for two
consecutive terms would have to undergo a cooling off period;
(ii) A person who is elected as an office bearer at the BCCI for
two consecutive period would have to undergo a cooling off period;
and (iii) A person who is elected as an office bearer in a state
association for one term followed by election as an office bearer
at the BCCI for one term would similarly have to undergo a cooling
off period. The consequence, therefore, is that a person who has
held office as an elected office bearer for only one term at the
BCCI would have to undergo a cooling off period. The submission
is that the application of a cooling off period after one term at a
particular level (the BCCI or state association, as the case may
be on after an immediately prior term at another level) is unduly
stringent and needs to be modified having regard to the purpose
for which the cooling off period was introduced. [Paras 14 and
15][528-D-H]
2. BCCI is an autonomous sports body. The judgment of
this court did not abrogate its power, as a registered society, to
amend its Constitution. The stipulation that an amendment be
carried by a three fourths majority and should not be implemented
without the prior leave of this court is in order to ensure that the
purpose underlying the adoption of the Constitution of BCCI is
not defeated. The purpose for which the cooling off period was
introduced, would not be diluted by the proposed amendment,
subject to the stipulations suggested by the amicus curiae. The
proposed stipulation that the cooling off period comes into effect
after two consecutive terms at the same level namely, at the state
associations or the BCCI does not abrogate the purpose of a
cooling off period. Therefore, the amendment as set out in Column
3 above is accepted [Para 16][529-A-C]
3. The next amendment is proposed to Clause 6(5) of the
BCCI’s Constitution. As in the case of Clause 6(4), the
amendment which was proposed to Clause 6(5) was deliberated
upon during the course of the hearing and certain suggestions
have been made in the course of the discussion by the amicus
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
521
curiae. BCCI has submitted that the disqualification from holding
any office or post in 

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