- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Board Of Control For Cricket In India v. Cricket Association Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Supreme Court of India is seized of Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014, 4236 of 2014 and 1155 of 2015 concerning the governance reforms of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Following its detailed judgment of 18-7-2016 (2016) 8 SCC 535 – which accepted the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee with modifications – the Court issued further directions on 2-1-2017 ((2017) 2 SCC 333) to constitute a “Committee of Administrators” (CoA) to oversee BCCI’s affairs.
The present orders dated 3-1-2017 and 20-1-2017 address (i) the nomination of experts who will propose names for the CoA, and (ii) clarifications and consequential directions arising out of the 2-1-2017 order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Mr Fali S. Nariman could continue to assist the Court in nominating members to the CoA in light of his prior professional engagement with BCCI.
- How paragraph 27.1(f) of the 2-1-2017 directions—laying down disqualification criteria for BCCI or State Association office-bearers—should be correctly worded and interpreted.
- Whether the disqualification of “Ministers or government servants” and the nine-year tenure bar adversely affects institutional teams such as Railways, Armed Forces and Association of Indian Universities.
- The procedural modality for selecting, disclosing and approving the names of proposed administrators.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned Amici Curiae (Mr Gopal Subramanium & Mr Anil B. Divan)
- Placed two sealed envelopes before the Court: one containing suggested names for the CoA and another explaining the methodology adopted.
- Expressed no objection to circulating these documents to all contesting counsel, leaving the matter to the Court’s discretion.
- Highlighted that review and curative petitions against the principal judgment have already been dismissed.
Attorney General for India (Mr Mukul Rohatgi)
- Contended that the disqualifications under paras 27.1(d) and (f) effectively bar Railways, Armed Forces and Association of Indian Universities—whose representatives are government servants—from holding BCCI office.
- Sought reconsideration or clarification so that these institutional teams are not left without representation.
Counsel for Certain State/Associate Associations (Mr Kapil Sibal)
- Drew attention to para 27.9 (remuneration and future role of the Lodha Committee) and submitted that the Committee is still issuing “FAQs,” questioning whether such activity is permissible within its curtailed mandate.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (2016) 8 SCC 535 – Judgment dated 18-7-2016 | Acceptance, with modifications, of Justice Lodha Committee recommendations. | Forms the substantive basis for all subsequent directions; CoA is tasked with ensuring compliance with this judgment. |
| (2017) 2 SCC 333 – Order dated 2-1-2017 | Detailed directions to constitute the CoA; enumerated disqualifications for office-bearers. | The present orders correct, clarify and operationalise paras 27.1, 27.6, 27.8, 27.9 & 27.10 of this order. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Order dated 3-1-2017: The Court accepted Mr Fali S. Nariman’s request to be relieved from assisting in nominations due to a potential conflict (prior retainer by BCCI). Mr Anil B. Divan, Senior Advocate, was appointed in his stead alongside Mr Gopal Subramanium. The Court also noted an “inadvertent error” in para 27.1(f) and corrected it to include service as an office-bearer of either BCCI or a State Association for a cumulative nine-year period.
Order dated 20-1-2017:
- The Bench opened the sealed covers, then resealed them, indicating that final selection of administrators would follow “due deliberation.” The existing BCCI CEO will continue to manage day-to-day operations under the forthcoming CoA’s supervision.
- Para 27.1(f) was further clarified to remove interpretational ambiguity: “has been an office-bearer of BCCI for nine years or a State Association for the same period.”
- The Court recorded concerns raised by the Attorney General about institutional teams and by Mr Kapil Sibal regarding the Lodha Committee’s continuing issuance of FAQs, deferring substantive adjudication of these points to a later hearing.
- All documents filed by the Amici were directed to remain sealed; the matter was listed for further orders on 24-1-2017.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The Court (i) discharged Mr Fali S. Nariman and appointed Mr Anil B. Divan to assist in nominating the Committee of Administrators; (ii) corrected and clarified para 27.1(f) of its 2-1-2017 directions; (iii) maintained sealed-cover confidentiality regarding suggested administrators; and (iv) scheduled further consideration on 24-1-2017.
Implications: The immediate effect is procedural: it advances the process of constituting a Court-appointed Committee of Administrators while ensuring that disqualification norms are clear and conflict-free. No new substantive precedent is set, but the clarification removes ambiguity affecting eligibility of prospective office-bearers and preserves institutional representation issues for later adjudication.
(2017) 3 SCC 698 (1)
Order dated 3-1-2017
(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. By our order pronounced on 2-1-2017 (2017) 2 SCC 333 we had requested the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr Gopal Subramanium and Mr Fali S. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel to assist us in nominating the members of the Committee of Administrators to be appointed in terms of the said order. Although Mr Nariman had tentatively agreed to do the needful, he today submits that he may have an embarrassment in accepting the assignment on account of the fact that he had been in the year 2009 retained on behalf of BCCI. We quite appreciate the difficulty expressed by Mr Nariman and accordingly discharge him of the role assigned to him.
2. In his place, we request Mr Anil B. Divan, learned Senior Counsel, to assist the Court and to recommend suitable names for appointment as members of the Committee of Administrators in consultation with the Amicus Curiae, Mr Gopal Subramanium.
3. Mr Gopal Subramanium also draws our attention to an inadvertent error in our order, para 27.1(f) whereof shall now stand modified/corrected to read as under:
“27.1(f) has been an office-bearer of BCCI or a State Association for a cumulative period of 9 years.”
(2017) 3 SCC 698 (2)
Order dated 20-1-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, A.M Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014 and 1155 of 2015, Contempt Petition (C) No. 46 of 2017 in CA No. 4235 of 2014 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 47 of 2017 in CA No. 4235 of 2014
4. Heard Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India, Mr Gopal Subramanium and Mr Anil B. Divan, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr Kapil Sibal, Mr Dinesh Dwivedi and Mr Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the other contesting parties.
5. On 2-1-2017 (2017) 2 SCC 333, this Court had issued several directions. The relevant directions which need to be reproduced are:
“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.
27.7 In addition to the function assigned in para 27.5 above, the Committee of Administrators shall also ensure that the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 18-7-2016 (2016) 8 SCC 535 (which accepted the report of the Committee with modifications) are fulfilled and to adopt all necessary and consequential steps for that purpose.
27.8 In view of the directions contained in para 27.2 above, the seniormost Vice-President of BCCI shall perform the duties of the President, BCCI and the Joint Secretary shall perform the duties of Secretary. Those of the office-bearers of BCCI who are not disqualified in terms of para 27.1 above (other than the President and Secretary) may continue subject to their filing an unconditional undertaking before this Court within four weeks of the date of this order to abide by and implement the directions contained in the judgment dated 18-7-2016 (2016) 8 SCC 535. Upon the Committee of Administrators as nominated by this Court assuming charge, the existing office-bearers shall function subject to the supervision and control of the Committee of Administrators. The Committee of Administrators would have the power to issue all appropriate directions to facilitate due supervision and control.
27.9 The remuneration payable to the members of the Committee of Administrators shall be fixed in consultation with the Committee consisting of Mr Justice R.M Lodha, Mr Justice Ashok Bhan and Mr Justice R.V Raveendran. The role of the Justice R.M Lodha Committee shall hereafter be confined to overall policy and direction on such matters as may be referred by this Court.
27.10 We would request the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Amicus Curiae to endeavour to submit their suggestions to this Court within two weeks. The proceedings shall be listed before this Court on 19-1-2017 for pronouncement of directions in regard to the names of the administrators.”
6. Be it noted, there was modification of the order as far as para 27.6 is concerned, and that is instead of Mr Fali S. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, Mr Anil B. Divan, learned Senior Counsel, was requested to suggest the names.
7. Mr Gopal Subramanium and Mr Anil B. Divan, learned Amicus Curiae have suggested certain names for formation of the Committee of Administrators for the Board of Control for Cricket (BCCI). The said suggestions were filed in two sealed covers before the Court, one containing the names and the other the methodology adopted by it. It is submitted by Mr Subramanium that neither Mr Divan nor he has any objection to circulate the names and give copies of the documents filed before this Court to all the learned counsel contesting or supporting the directions. While so submitting, he has left it to the discretion of this Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate that the documents in the sealed covers which have been opened in the Court should be sealed and, after due deliberation, certain number of members shall be chosen, who can administer the day-to-day affairs of BCCI. We have been apprised that presently the CEO is functioning and looking after the working of BCCI and he shall continue to do so till we nominate the Committee, under whose supervision he shall work.
9. At this juncture, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India has submitted that two of the directions passed on 2-1-2017 (2017) 2 SCC 333, have seriously affected the Railways, Inter-Services team of the Armed Forces and Association of Indian Universities, for they are disqualified to become office-bearers. He has drawn our attention to the disqualification enumerated in paras 27.1(a), (d) and (f), especially para 27.1(f) that has been modified vide order 3-1-2017. Paras 27.1(d) and 27.1(f) which find mention in the order dated 2-1-2017 (2017) 2 SCC 333, read as under:
“27.1(d) is a Minister or government servant;
***
(f) has been an office-bearer of BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years.”
10. On 3-1-2017, para (f) has been modified to the following extent:
“27.1(f) Has been an office-bearer of BCCI or a State Association for a cumulative period of 9 years.”
11. The clarificatory order dated 3-1-2017, referring to office-bearers of the BCCI or a State Association for a “cumulative period” of nine years is likely to create some ambiguity and, therefore, we clarify para 27.1(f) which should be read as follows:
“27.1(f) has been an office-bearer of BCCI for nine years or a State Association for the same period.”
12. Mr Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae has also submitted that the applications for review and the curative petitions have already been dismissed.
13. Needless to say, the contentions are recorded as advanced today.
14. We will be failing in our duty if we do not record the submissions advanced by Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the Associations. He has drawn our attention to para 27.9 which reads as follows:
“27.9 The remuneration payable to the members of the Committee of Administrators shall be fixed in consultation with the Committee consisting of Mr Justice R.M Lodha, Mr Justice Ashok Bhan and Mr Justice R.V Raveendran. The role of the Justice R.M Lodha Committee shall hereafter be confined to overall policy and direction on such matters as may be referred by this Court.”
It is urged by him that the Committee is still sending certain FAQs. Whether the FAQs would come under para 27.9 or not, shall be deliberated on at the next date of hearing.
15. It is submitted by Mr Rohatgi, that the Railways and the Inter-Services team of Armed Forces have only government servants and if a government servant is debarred, neither the Railways nor the Armed Forces can be represented by outsiders. The same principle, it is urged, will apply to the Association of Universities.
16. Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae submits that this aspect had been dealt with in the principal judgment and in consonance with the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee. The said issue shall be adverted to at a later stage.
17. Let the matter be listed at 2.00 p.m on 24-1-2017. The documents that have been filed by Mr Gopal Subramanium and Mr Anil B. Divan, learned Amicus Curiae, be kept in a sealed cover.
Court Masters
Alert