- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Board Of Control For Cricket v. Cricket Association Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The set of orders summarized here arises out of Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 (and connected matters) before the Supreme Court of India concerning the governance of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Pursuant to earlier directions and the report of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, the Court has been continuously monitoring implementation of structural reforms in BCCI, authorising expenditures required for on-going international cricket fixtures, and addressing disputes regarding appointment of a Committee of Administrators (CoA) to oversee BCCI’s affairs. Between September 2016 and April 2017 the Court issued several interim orders dealing with: (i) impediments to implementing its directions, (ii) requests by BCCI and State Associations for release of funds, (iii) constitution and functioning of the CoA, and (iv) clarification of disqualification norms for office-bearers.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether and to what extent BCCI could incur specific expenditures for scheduled international and domestic cricket matches while under Court-appointed oversight.
- How the Court should constitute a Committee of Administrators in conformity with the Lodha Committee recommendations and previous judgments.
- Who is eligible or disqualified, under the Court’s earlier rulings, to serve as BCCI or State Association office-bearers or to represent BCCI at the International Cricket Council (ICC).
- Whether funds should be released to particular State Associations (e.g., Delhi & District Cricket Association, Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association) to honour contractual obligations for hosting matches.
- Clarifications required on the continuing participation rights of non-compliant State Associations in BCCI meetings.
Arguments of the Parties
BCCI / State Associations
- Through Mr. Kapil Sibal and later Mr. Arvind P. Datar, BCCI sought permission to spend specific sums (e.g., ₹133.82 lakh for Test matches in Mumbai and Chennai and up to ₹25 lakh per limited-overs match) and requested release of funds to State Associations for day-to-day expenses and contractual obligations.
- Mr. Sibal indicated that prior authorised expenditures had been duly incurred and accounts maintained.
- The Himachal Pradesh State Cricket Association urged that BCCI honour its financial commitments for the India–Australia Test match scheduled at Dharamshala.
Amicus Curiae / Lodha Committee
- Mr. Gopal Subramanium and Mr. Anil B. Divan supplied sealed-cover suggestions for prospective members of the CoA and emphasised adherence to Lodha Committee timelines.
- They questioned whether disqualified individuals could participate in BCCI or ICC meetings and sought the Court’s clarification via the CoA’s third report.
Union of India
- Learned Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi asked that the Central Government be allowed to suggest names for the CoA and proposed inclusion of the Sports Secretary.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535 | Acceptance of Lodha Committee reforms and need for Court oversight. | Used as the foundational decision that required subsequent implementation and the appointment of a supervisory mechanism. |
| Order dated 2-1-2017, (2017) 2 SCC 333 | Initial directions on disqualification criteria and future appointment of Administrators. | Repeatedly relied upon for clarifying expenditure limits, nomination processes, and interpreting the nine-year disqualification rule. |
| Order dated 20-1-2017, (2017) 3 SCC 696 / 698 | Clarification of disqualification clause 27.1(f). | Invoked to restate that nine years in BCCI or State Association office triggers disqualification. |
| Orders dated 7-10-2016 & 21-10-2016, (2016) 10 SCC 23 | Timeline for State Associations to comply with reforms. | CoA sought guidance on whether non-compliant Associations could attend BCCI meetings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Across the series of orders, the Court’s reasoning can be summarised as follows:
- Fiscal Oversight: The Court balanced the need to ensure uninterrupted conduct of international cricket with stringent financial scrutiny. It authorised discrete expenditures, mandated account-payee cheques, and required BCCI to file affidavits detailing receipts and spending.
- Constitution of the CoA: After considering sealed-cover suggestions from the Amici, the Attorney General, and counsel for the parties, the Court appointed four eminent individuals (Vinod Rai, Ramachandra Guha, Vikram Limaye, Diana Edulji) as Administrators, making Mr. Rai the chair. The CEO of BCCI was directed to report to this CoA.
- Disqualification Clarification: Observing lingering uncertainty, the Court reaffirmed that completion of nine cumulative years as an office-bearer in BCCI or a State Association independently triggers disqualification for that entity; the same tenure in one does not bar service in the other.
- Participation in ICC: To ensure transparency, the Court allowed a mixed delegation—one CoA member and two BCCI officials—to attend ICC meetings, later narrowing it to the Acting Secretary (Amitabh Chaudhary) and CEO (Rahul Johri) for the April 2017 session.
- Release of Funds to Associations: The Court authorised funds to DDCA and directed BCCI to honour contracts with State Associations, emphasising parity and timely execution to avoid disruption of scheduled matches, including the IPL.
- Pending Clarifications:** Through the CoA’s third report, the Court agreed to later examine issues regarding attendance rights of disqualified persons at BCCI meetings and representation at ICC.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court (i) constituted a four-member Committee of Administrators to supervise BCCI, (ii) authorised specific expenditures for ongoing cricket fixtures subject to strict accounting, (iii) clarified the nine-year disqualification rule, (iv) directed nomination of eligible representatives for ICC meetings, and (v) mandated BCCI to honour financial commitments to State Associations while the reform process continues.
Implications: These interim orders ensure continuity of international and domestic cricket in India while reinforcing judicial control over BCCI’s reform. The appointment of a professional CoA represents a significant step toward implementing the Lodha Committee’s structural changes, although no new legal precedent beyond this monitoring framework was set. The matters remain pending for further directions, particularly on broader governance and compliance issues slated for hearings in July 2017.
(2017) 6 SCC 741(1)
Order dated 28-9-2016
(Before Dr T.S Thakur, C.J and A.M Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014 and 1155 of 2015
1. Mr Senthil Jagadeesan, learned counsel, has today filed a status report drawn up by Justice R.M Lodha Committee appointed by this Court pointing out certain impediments caused by BCCI functionaries in the implementation of the directions of this Court. Mr Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel who appears for BCCI submits that given a short adjournment he will respond to the averments made in the said status report. He may do so within one week.
2. List again on Thursday, 6-10-2016 at 10.30 a.m along with application for direction before a three-Judge Bench. A copy of the status report shall be furnished to Mr Arvind P. Datar as well as to Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae in these matters.
(2017) 6 SCC 741(2)
Order dated 7-12-2016
(Before Dr T.S Thakur, C.J and A.M Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y Chandrachud, JJ.)
IA No. 29 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014
3. We had by our order dated 8-11-2016 (2017) 2 SCC 333 allowed IA No. 28 of 2016 and permitted BCCI to incur an expenditure of Rs 58.66 lakhs for the test match being played at Rajkot with a visiting English team. We had further permitted similar expenditure to be incurred in connection with other matches with the English team till 5-12-2016.
4. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has moved the present application in which certain further directions have been sought for by the applicant BCCI. Mr Sibal submits that pursuant to the order earlier made, BCCI has incurred the authorised expenditure in connection with the test matches at Rajkot, Vizag and Mohali. He submits that two more test matches are directed to be played, one at Bombay and the other at Chennai. He has, therefore, sought permission to incur an expenditure of Rs 133.82 lakhs on the said two matches. The details of the expenditure sought to be incurred is also set out at p. 4 of the application. Mr Sibal submits that while the application prays for permission to incur an additional expenditure of Rs 3.79 crores on three ODIs and three T-20 international matches also BCCI would be satisfied in case for the present, it is authorised to incur expenditure on making of hotel bookings up to at the rate of Rs 25 lakhs per match.
5. Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae is not present today. A proxy counsel appearing for him submits that given an opportunity, the Amicus would like to respond to the application. In the meantime, we see no reason why the expenditure which BCCI proposes to incur in connection with the two test matches referred to above should not be authorised. We, accordingly, allow this application to the extent that BCCI shall be free to incur an expenditure of Rs 133.82 lakhs in connection with two test matches scheduled to be played with the English team. We also permit BCCI to incur an expenditure up to Rs 25lakhs per match for six matches scheduled to be played with the English team in the months of January and February 2017. Needless to say, BCCI shall incur the expenditure hereby authorised/strictly in terms of the order passed by this Court on 8-11-2016 (2017) 2 SCC 333. We further direct that BCCI shall file an affidavit indicating the total receipts on all counts in connection with the matches already played and those scheduled to be played and the share of receipts which has fallen to BCCI's lot out of the total. We make it clear that no part of the amount which we have authorised shall be handed over to the cricket associations whose stadia are used for playing the matches and that the amount shall be disbursed only by account payee's cheque. Needless to say that proper accounts of the expenditure so incurred shall be maintained by BCCI.
6. List the application for further directions after x-mas holidays.
(2017) 6 SCC 742
Order dated 24-1-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, A.M Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014, 1155 of 2015, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 46 and 47 of 2017 in CA No. 4235 of 2014
7. When the matter was called for today, as per the order dated 20-1-2017 (2017) 3 SCC 696, (2017) 3 SCC 698 (2), Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the State Associations has submitted that due to inadvertence, he could not suggest the names to be included in the Committee of Administrators, when such liberty was granted in para 27.6 of the order dated 2-1-2017 (2017) 2 SCC 333. For the sake of convenience, the said paragraph is reproduced below: (BCCI case (2017) 2 SCC 333)
“27.6. This Court shall by a separate order nominate the persons who shall form part of the Committee of Administrators. In order to enable the Court to have the benefit of objective assistance in making the nominations, we request Mr Fali S. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel and Mr Gopal Subramanium, the learned Amicus Curiae to assist the Court by suggesting names of persons with integrity and experience in managing a similar enterprise. We request the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to also place their suggestions before the Court so as to facilitate a considered decision.”
8. Be it noted, earlier on the learned Amicus Curiae and Mr Anil B. Divan, the learned Senior Counsel had suggested certain names for the Committee of Administrators for BCCI. We had opened the sealed cover on the last occasion and, thereafter, got it sealed again so that we can choose the names for nomination of the Committee of Administrators. However, as leave was granted to the learned Senior Counsel, we do not intend to curtail the said right.
9. At this juncture, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India has submitted that the Central Government may be permitted to suggest certain names so that a Committee having a holistic approach can be constituted.
10. Having heard Mr Rohatgi, learned Attorney General and Mr Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for some of the State Associations, we permit them to suggest names for Committee of Administrators for BCCI in a sealed cover. However, it is hereby made absolutely clear that the names that will be suggested should be in consonance with the principal judgment and the subsequent orders passed thereafter. If anyone suffers from any kind of disqualification, that shall not be suggested to and considered by this Court. After the names are submitted in a sealed cover, this Court, keeping in view, the names given by Mr Anil B. Divan and Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae and the names to be given by Mr Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Kapil Sibal, shall constitute a Committee of appropriate number of members to do the needful.
11. At this juncture, Mr Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for BCCI has submitted that there is a meeting of the Executive Committee of ICC in the first week of February 2017. According to Mr Datar, the said meeting is to be attended by one nominee from BCCI. The said position is not disputed by Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae assisting the Court.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we permit Mr Datar to give three names in a sealed cover after following the due process and, needless to say, the names that will be given should not be disqualified under the principal judgment or any of the orders of this Court.
13. Let the names by Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General and Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the Committee of Administrators for BCCI and Mr Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel for BCCI for a nominee to attend the meeting of ICC, be given by 27-1-2017.
14. The documents that have been filed by the learned Amicus Curiae be kept in a sealed cover. Let the matter be listed at 3.00 p.m on 30-1-2017.
(2017) 6 SCC 744
Order dated 30-1-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, A.M Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014, 1155 of 2015, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 46 and 47 of 2017 in CA No. 4235 of 2014
15. On 24-1-2017, this Court after referring to the order dated 2-1-2017 (2017) 2 SCC 333 and upon hearing Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India, Mr Anil B. Divan and Mr Gopal Subramanian, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for BCCI, Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for certain Associations, had directed as follows:
“12. In view of the aforesaid, we permit Mr Datar to give three names in a sealed cover after following the due process and, needless to say, the names that will be given should not be disqualified under the principal judgment or any of the orders of this Court.
13. Let the names by Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General and Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the Committee of Administrators for BCCI and Mr Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel for BCCI for a nominee to attend the meeting of ICC, be given by 27-1-2017.
14. The documents that have been filed by the learned Amicus Curiae be kept in a sealed cover.”
16. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Mr Datar, learned Senior Counsel has filed a list of names in a sealed cover. Similarly, certain names have been suggested by Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for certain State Associations. In course of hearing, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General has suggested that the Secretary of the Sports Ministry, Union of India, may be one of the members of the Committee of Administrators.
17. First, we shall deal with the submission of Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India. By order dated 2-1-2017 (2017) 2 SCC 333, this Court had observed that no government servant shall be a member of BCCI. In view of the aforesaid, without dwelling upon the issue of whether the Sports Secretary should be a member of the Committee of Administrators or not, today, we think it appropriate to defer the proposal of Mr Rohatgi.
18. We nominate the following members, who shall function as the Committee of Administrators for BCCI:
(i) Mr Vinod Rai, former Comptroller and Auditor General of India;
(ii) Mr Ramachandra Guha, eminent writer, thinker and cricket historian;
(iii) Mr Vikram Limaye, Managing Director and CEO, IDFC Ltd.; and
(iv) Ms Diana Edulji, former eminent cricketer and captain of the Indian Women's Cricket team.
Mr Vinod Rai shall be the Chairman of the Committee of Administrators. The CEO of BCCI shall report to the Committee of Administrators and the administrators shall supervise the management of BCCI.
19. An issue had arisen on the previous occasion, as well as today with regard to the implementation of Justice Lodha Committee recommendations which have been accepted by this Court with certain modifications. It is submitted by Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel, the Secretary of Justice Lodha Committee that it had incorporated certain timelines. Mr Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for BCCI would submit that many of the suggestions of Justice Lodha Committee which have been accepted by this Court have been complied with. There is a dispute with regard to the same.
20. In view of the same, we direct the Committee of Administrators to ask the CEO of BCCI to submit a compliance report within a week hence. Mr Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel shall supply the timelines to Mr Datar so that the counsel assisting Mr Datar may be in a position to convey to the CEO what is to be placed before the Committee. The Committee shall scrutinise the compliance and submit a status report before this Court within four weeks from today.
21. Be it noted, on the last occasion, it was submitted by Mr Datar that BCCI has to send a nominee to attend the meeting of ICC which is likely to be held in the first week of February 2017. For the aforesaid purpose, names have been suggested by Mr Datar. Considering the names suggested by Mr Datar, we are of the opinion that three persons, one from the Committee of Administrators and two from BCCI shall attend the ICC meeting so that there will be objectivity and transparency. For the aforesaid purpose, we nominate, Mr Amitabh Chaudhary, Joint Secretary, and Mr Anirudh Chaudhry, Treasurer, BCCI and Mr Vikram Limaye, Managing Director and CEO, IDFC Ltd. Needless to say, BCCI shall make all arrangements for and bear the expenses of the same. It is further clarified that these persons have been nominated to attend the ICC meeting only for this time.
22. With regard to the terms and conditions of the Committee of Administrators, the CEO of BCCI shall place the proposal before this Court.
23. Mr Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for BCCI submits that he has letters of undertaking from certain office-bearers in pursuance of the order dated 2-1-2017 (2017) 2 SCC 333. Liberty is granted to file them. Needless to say, the grant of the liberty to file does not mean that we have expressed any opinion on the undertaking or the validity thereof.
24. Let the matter be listed at 3.00 p.m on 27-3-2017.
(2017) 6 SCC 746
Order dated 6-3-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, A.M Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014, 1155 of 2015, SMC (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017 in CA No. 4235 of 2014, SMC (Crl.) No. 2 of 2017 in CA No. 4236 of 2014, SMC (Crl.) No. 3 of 2017 in CA No. 1155 of 2015, WP (C) No. 46 of 2017, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 46 and 47 of 2017 in CA No. 4235 of 2014, SLPs (C) Nos. … CC Nos. 4762, 4759 of 2017, SLP (C) No. 7218 of 2017
SLP (C) No. 7218 of 2017
25. Heard Mr V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Regard being had to the nature of the order passed by the High Court, we request the High Court to dispose of CRP No. 174 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 5-4-2017. Be it noted, we have been constrained to make such a request as there is an interdiction with regard to the process of election. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
IA No. 52 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014
26. This is an application by Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) for issuance of a direction to the Committee of Administrators, BCCI for release of certain amount so that DDCA can take care of its day-to-day expenses. Having heard Mr Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant DDCA, Mr Parag P. Tripathi and Mr C.U Singh, learned Senior Counsel representing the Committee and Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae, we direct the Committee of Administrators, BCCI to release the requisite funds, subject to the undertaking given by the competent authority assisting the learned Administrator of the Delhi and District Cricket Association. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.
Suo Motu Contempt Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2017 in Civil Appeals Nos. 4235 and 4236 of 2014 and 1155 of 2015
27. In pursuance of the suo motu initiation for contempt, the contemnor is personally present in the Court. He has filed an affidavit rendering unconditional apology. Additionally, he has also explained his stand. Let the matter be listed at 3.00 p.m on 17-4-2017. The personal presence of the contemnor is dispensed with for the next date of hearing.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4235-36 of 2014 and 1155 of 2015, Writ Petition (C) No. 46 of 2017, CPs (C) Nos. 46 and 47 of 2017 in CA No. 4235 of 2014 and SLPs (C) Nos. … CC Nos. 4759 and 4762 of 2017
28. Let these matters be listed at 3.00 p.m on 20-3-2017.
(2017) 6 SCC 747
Order dated 24-3-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, A.M Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014, 1155 of 2015, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 46 and 47 of 2017 in CA No. 4235 of 2014, WP (C) No. 46 of 2017, SLPs (C) Nos. … CC Nos. 4762, 4759 of 2017
29. The present interlocutory applications have been filed with manifold prayers, which includes certain modification in the judgment and order passed by this Court on 18-7-2016, in BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar (2016) 8 SCC 535, as well as certain modifications in the order dated 2-1-2017 (2017) 2 SCC 333. We think it appropriate that the prayers made in respect of many aspects can wait and be considered after some time. The emergent prayer which is required to be considered today is for extension of the financial benefits for the test match, regard being had to the contract entered into by the State Association with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
30. It is submitted by Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the H.P State Cricket Association that there is a test match which is going to be played between India and Australia tomorrow i.e on 25-3-2017, at Dharamsala Cricket Stadium and, therefore, BCCI is under obligation to honour its contractual obligation with the State Association.
31. Having heard Mr Mehta for the applicant in IA No. 42 of 2017 and Mr Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the Committee of Administrators of BCCI, it is directed that BCCI 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.
32. Another aspect that has been highlighted before this Court is with regard to the holding of matches of Indian Premier League (IPL). We have been apprised that the matches are going to commence from 5-4-2017, and there are ten venues in India. 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, BCCI shall also honour the contractual terms. Needless to say, when we say that BCCI shall honour its commitment, there has to be sincere commitment of honouring the terms and conditions of the contract by all the parties to the contract.
33. Having said this, we would have adjourned the matter for some other date for consideration of other reliefs sought in the interlocutory applications, but Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General would submit that cricket which is a game of glorious uncertainties, possibly has entered into the marrows of the certain authorities, as a consequence of which doubts are created as regards the eligibility. Certain communications have been shown to us, but as we understand the real concern is the question that relates to disqualification.
34. To us, the direction and order passed by this Court was absolutely clear and if we permit ourselves to say so, it was clear as a cloudless sky. However, to dispel any kind of doubt, we proceed to restate the clarification in the exercise that was undertaken vide order dated 20-1-2017 (2017) 3 SCC 696, (2017) 3 SCC 698 (2). It may be noted that on 3-1-2017, clause (f) which deals with disqualification was modified to the following extent: (BCCI case (2017) 3 SCC 696, (2017) 3 SCC 698 (2))
“10. … ‘27.1.(f) Has been an office-bearer of BCCI or a State Association for a cumulative period of 9 years.’ (BCCI case (2017) 2 SCC 333)”
35. When the matter was taken up on 20-1-2017 (2017) 3 SCC 696, (2017) 3 SCC 698 (2), a submission was advanced that that clause is likely to create some kind of ambiguity and, accordingly, this Court further stated as follows: (BCCI case (2017) 3 SCC 696, (2017) 3 SCC 698 (2))
“11. … ‘27.1.(f) has been an office-bearer of BCCI for nine years or a State Association for the same period.’ (BCCI case (2017) 2 SCC 333)”
36. In the principal judgment, the controversy and the dispute in respect of this disqualification pertains to the office-bearers with regard to the period. What has been meant by the clarificatory order is that if an office-bearer has completed nine years in any post in BCCI, he shall stand disqualified to become an office-bearer of BCCI. 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. To avoid any kind of maze, we proceed to state by giving an example. 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 BCCI.
37. As far as the Pondicherry Cricket Association is concerned, we grant liberty to submit a representation to the Committee of Administrators. The representation shall be decided by the Committee of Administrators within four weeks therefrom.
38. Let all the connected matters be listed at 2.00 p.m on 14-7-2017.
(2017) 6 SCC 748
Order dated 10-4-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, A.M Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y Chandrachud, JJ.)
IA No. 53 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014
IA No. 53 of 2017 in CA No. 4235 of 2014
39. This is an application for modification/rectification of the order dated 24-3-2017. Vide order dated 24-3-2017, this Court had permitted the “Pondicherry Cricket Association” to submit a representation to the Committee of Administrators with a stipulation that the said representation shall be decided by the Committee within four weeks therefrom.
40. It is submitted by Mr Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, that the description to the effect “Pondicherry Cricket Association”, had been wrongly mentioned and it should be “Cricket Association of Pondicherry”. Regard being had to the said submission, the earlier order is rectified to the effect that the “Cricket Association of Pondicherry” is granted liberty to submit a representation to the Committee within two weeks from today which shall be considered by the Committee of Administrators within two weeks from the receipt of the representation.
41. The IA stands disposed of.
CA No. 4235 of 2014
42. The Committee of Administrators has submitted its third report dated 6-4-2017. It has prayed for clarification and sought for the following directions:
“(a) Issue appropriate directions relating to whether the first FAQs and the second FAQs (especially FAQ 2 of the second FAQs) form part of the reforms that the Committee of Administrators is required to implement;
(b) Issue appropriate directions relating to whether persons who are disqualified from being office-bearers of a State Association are nevertheless entitled to attend any Special General Meeting or Annual General Meeting of BCCI as nominees/representations of a State Association;
(c) Issue appropriate directions relating to whether persons who are disqualified from being office-bearers of BCCI may nevertheless be appointed to represent BCCI at the International Cricket Council;
(d) Issue appropriate directions regarding whether State Associations that have not complied with the orders dated 7-10-2016 (2016) 10 SCC 23 and 21-10-2016 (2016) 10 SCC 231 passed by this Hon'ble Court are nevertheless entitled to participate in any Special General Meeting or Annual General Meeting of BCCI and send their nominees/representatives to attend the same; and
(e) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate in the facts and circumstances.”
43. It is submitted by Mr C.U Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee of Administrators which includes CEO of BCCI that the Committee requires directions of this Court whether anyone who is not eligible by virtue of his age or other disqualifications that have been postulated by the principal judgment of this Court can be nominated by BCCI to ICC or by the State Associations. This is a matter to be debated.
44. It is also accepted by Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae that the matter can be posted some time before the ICC meets so that the controversy is put to rest.
45. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the matter be listed at 3.00 p.m on 17-4-2017. If any meeting is held in the meantime, needless to say, it shall be subject to our further adjudication on the prayer or directions made by the Committee of Administrators.
(2017) 6 SCC 750
Order dated 17-4-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, A.M Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014
46. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only issue that is required to be decided today is who will represent BCCI in the ICC meeting which is scheduled to be held on 24-4-2017.
47. In the course of hearing, we have been apprised that Mr Amitabh Chaudhary, who is presently the acting Secretary of BCCI can be nominated to attend the meeting. At this juncture, it is also submitted that Mr Rahul Johri, the Chief Executive Officer should accompany him and attend the meeting of the Chief Executive Officers. Regard being had to the significance of representation of BCCI in the said international body i.e ICC, it is directed that Amitabh Chaudhary shall represent BCCI before ICC and Mr Rahul Johri shall accompany him and also attend the meeting of the Chief Executive Officers. Let the matter be listed at 2.00 p.m on 14-7-2017.
Court Masters
Alert