Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr DY Chandrachud, JJ directed the BCCI office bearers, namely, C.K. Khanna, Anirudh Chaudhry and Amitabh Choudhary to give suggestions in furtherance of the Court’s order wherein it accepted the Justice Lodha Committee report. The Court said that if the office bearers fail to give their suggestions within 3 weeks, “they shall face serious consequences”.

The Court said that the draft constitution shall include the suggestions given by Justice Lodha Committee in its entirety so that a holistic document comes before the Court. Hence, it was noticed that after the document is placed before the Court, it will consider the claims of Railways, Universities and Services and the other cricket Associations, who are of the view that concept of ‘one State one vote’ should not be applicable keeping in view their contribution to the game of cricket.

It was further directed that for the purpose of drafting out the constitution after taking note of the suggestions, to make it final for the purpose of approval by this Court, the Office Bearers of B.C.C.I. shall not hold a General Body Meeting.

Earlier, on 02.01.2017, the bench headed by then Chief Justice, Justice TS Thakur had accepted the Justice Lodha Committee Report on structural reforms in the BCCI in order to streamline the working of the BCCI and possibly prevent any aberrations or controversies in which it has been embroiled in the past. The Lodha Committee had, regarding the disqualification of the office bearers of BCCI, had recommended that a person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer if he or she:

  • Is not a citizen of India;
  • Has attained the age of 70 years;
  • Is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind;
  • Is a Minister or government servant;
  • Holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from cricket;
  • Has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years;
  • Has been charged by a Court of Law for having committed any criminal offence.

Last year, on 18.07.2016, the Court said:

“the game of Cricket does not flourishes in this country because any minister or civil servant holds office in the State Associations or BCCI.”

The Court will now hear the matter on 30.10.2017 when all the above-mentioned office bearers have been asked to be present before the Court. [Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1155 , order dated 21.09.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Considering the fact that there is a test match which is going to be played between India and Australia tomorrow i.e. 25th March, 2017, at Dharamsala Cricket Stadium, the Court directed that the B.C.C.I. shall honour the terms and conditions postulated in the contracts with the State Associations in letter and spirit so that there is no impediment in holding the test matches and ODIs

With regard to the IPL matches that are going to commence from 05.04.2017 on 10 venues in India, the Court said that there have to be tripartite contracts and some have been entered into while some shall be entered into in due course. After the contracts are executed, following the principle of parity, the B.C.C.I. shall also honour the contractual terms

Clearing the air over the disqualification as modified on 20.01.2017 where it was said that a person will be disqualified if he or she has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI or any State Cricket Association for a cumulative period of 18 years i.e. if he/she has served separate 9 years terms at BCCI and State Cricket Association, the Court said that what has been meant by the clarificatory order is that, if an office bearer has completed nine years in any post in the B.C.C.I., he shall stand disqualified to become an office bearer of the B.C.C.I. Similarly, if a person holds the post of office bearer in any capacity for any State Association for nine years, he shall stand disqualified for contesting or holding any post or office of the State Association. The bench of Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandachud said that if a person has held the post of office bearer in respect of a State Association for a period of nine years, he will not be disqualified to contest for the post of office bearer of the B.C.C.I. [BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 277, order dated 24.03.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Directing that Anurag Thakur, President of BCCI and Ajay Shirke, Secretary, BCCI shall forthwith cease and desist from being associated with the working of BCCI, the 3-Judge Bench of T.S. Thakur, CJ and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ accepted the norms laid down by the Lodha Committee regarding the disqualification of the office bearers of BCCI which said that a person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer if he or she :

  • Is not a citizen of India;
  • Has attained the age of 70 years;
  • Is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind;
  • Is a Minister or government servant;
  • Holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from cricket;
  • Has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years;
  • Has been charged by a Court of Law for having committed any criminal offence.

The Bench said that tough sufficient opportunities have been granted to BCCI to comply with the judgment and order of this Court, it has failed to do so. The President and Secretary and office bearers of BCCI have obstructed the implementation of the final directions of this Court on the basis of a specious plea that its State Associations are not willing to abide by the directions. The Court had earlier, on 07.10.2016, asked Anurag Thakur, President of the BCCI to file a personal affidavit whether he had asked the CEO of the ICC to state that the appointment of Justice Lodha Committee was tantamount to Government interference in the working of the BCCI. It was noticed that the conduct of the President of BCCI in seeking a letter from the President of ICC in August 2016, after the final judgment and Order dated 18.07.2016, is nothing but an attempt on the part of the head of BCCI to evade complying, with the Order of this Court. The Court, hence, issued a show-cause notice to Anurag Thakur to explain why he should not be proceeded against under the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Stating that a Committee of administrators shall supervise the administration of BCCI through its Chief Executive Officer, the Court requested Mr Fali S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel and Mr Gopal Subramaniam, the learned Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in nominating the names of the administrators by suggesting names of persons with integrity and experience in managing a similar enterprise. Till then, the Court directed that the senior most Vice-President of BCCI shall perform the duties of the President, BCCI and the Joint Secretary shall perform the duties of Secretary. The matter was listed to be taken up on 19.01.2017 for nominating the names of the members of the committee of administrators. [BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 4, order dated 02.01.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: In a case before the Court where certain questions relating to the issue of the writ of mandamus commanding the Authorised Controller/District Magistrate to hold election of office bearers of a society registered under the Act of 1860 had been referred for the opinion of the larger Bench, the majority opinion  of the Court authored by Dilip B. Bhosale, C.J. (with whom Yashwant Varma, J. agreed) held that issuing a writ of mandamus to societies regulated by the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is justified.

In the present case, a college run by a society registered under the Act was affiliated to a University. The State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 57 of the Uttar Pradesh Universities Act, 1973 appointed the District Magistrate as the Authorized Controller to take over the management of the College and its properties overlooking the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This direction of the State Government and of the learned Single and Division Benches was appealled against in this case.

The Court analysed the facts of the case and Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J expressing his dissenting opinion said that the body charged with the responsibility to manage such educational institution is the society, registered under the Act of 1860, and the exclusive provision to regulate it, so far as its valid constitution is concerned, vests in the authority constituted under the Act of 1860.

Contrarily, the majority relying on the Supreme Court Constitution Bench’s decision in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 held that it would amount to curtailment of the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution if the writ is prevented from being issued. The High Courts are authorised under Article 226 of the Constitution, to issue directions, orders or writs to any person or authority, including any Government to enforce fundamental rights and, “for any other purpose”. [Committee of Management, Dadar Ashram Trust Society v. Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, 2016 SCC OnLine All 1072, decided on 16.12.2016]