- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Board Of Control For Cricket v. Cricket Association Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The group of matters concerns the continuing supervision by the Supreme Court of India over the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and its State Associations following the report of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. After the Court’s main judgment (not reproduced here) accepted that report and appointed a Committee of Administrators (CoA) to oversee reforms, a series of interlocutory orders were passed between 24 July 2017 and 11 May 2018. These orders address implementation of the Lodha recommendations, composition of the CoA, adoption of a new BCCI Constitution, funding issues of various cricket associations, and representation rights of certain entities (e.g., Union Territory of Puducherry, State of Bihar, Railways, Services, Universities).
Each order arose in pending civil appeals, writ petitions and contempt petitions dating back to 2014–2017. The Court repeatedly fixed dates, required personal presence of BCCI office-bearers, and gave specific directions to ensure compliance with its earlier judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether persons disqualified under the Lodha Committee report can act as “representatives” or nominees of State Associations at the Special General Meeting (SGM) of the BCCI.
- To what extent the recommendations of the Lodha Committee must be implemented immediately, and how a draft Constitution of the BCCI should incorporate them.
- How vacancies on the Committee of Administrators are to be filled, and what procedure should govern that appointment.
- Whether and on what terms funds held by the CoA should be released to State Associations such as Maharashtra, Saurashtra and Assam for stadium maintenance and cricketing activities.
- Which association is entitled to associate membership for the Union Territory of Puducherry, and what process should resolve competing claims.
- Whether the State of Bihar must be enabled to participate in national competitions such as the Ranji Trophy.
Arguments of the Parties
Submissions Supporting Strict Application of Lodha Report
- Mr. Gopal Subramanium (Amicus Curiae) and senior counsel for the CoA argued that any person disqualified under the Lodha norms cannot be nominated as a representative for an Association.
- They contended that none of the Lodha recommendations had been implemented by the BCCI, and sought directions to finalise a new Constitution and enforce compliance.
- They alleged a “concerted attempt” by the BCCI office-bearers to ignore the Court’s judgment.
Submissions by BCCI and State Associations
- Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Puneet Bali and Mr. Tushar Mehta, appearing for BCCI office-bearers and various Associations, asserted that certain recommendations had in fact been implemented and that the Lodha regulations did not expressly bar participation of nominees at the SGM.
- They sought release of funds for maintenance of stadiums and cricketing activities, and requested time to furnish suggestions on the draft Constitution.
Other Specific Representations
- The Maharashtra, Saurashtra and Assam Cricket Associations pressed for immediate release of large sums due to them.
- Three rival associations from Puducherry staked claims for associate membership.
- Applicants from Bihar, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh and Chandigarh raised grievances about participation rights or recognition by the BCCI.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court treated the matter as one of ensuring faithful execution of its prior judgment rather than adjudicating fresh legal disputes.
- Disqualification Issue: Pending final determination, the Court directed that only elected office-bearers—not nominees or representatives—could attend the SGM, thereby neutralising attempts by disqualified individuals to influence decisions.
- Implementation of Lodha Report: Recognising delays, the Court ordered the CoA to draft a complete Constitution incorporating the Lodha recommendations “in their entirety” and circulate it for comments, emphasising that objections must carry “acceptable sanctity.” The BCCI office-bearers were warned of “serious consequences” for non-cooperation.
- Future Governance: The Court scheduled consideration of two additional CoA members, illustrating its ongoing supervisory role.
- Puducherry Membership: Rather than decide directly, the Court tasked the CoA to supply the Affiliation Committee’s report to the contesting associations, hear them, and issue a reasoned decision within two weeks.
- Funding Requests: For Maharashtra, Saurashtra, Assam and similarly placed associations, the Court required applications to be made under an existing CoA protocol (letter dated 12-4-2017) and directed the CoA to act expeditiously, with reasons if any claim were rejected.
- Bihar Participation: On an assurance from the Amicus and acceptance by the CoA, the Court recorded that Bihar would receive “all the benefits” to play in the 2018-19 Ranji Trophy, disposing of the contempt petition.
- Contempt Petitions: Some contempt petitions were dismissed as infructuous or withdrawn once the underlying relief was secured.
Holding and Implications
Key Directions: The Court issued multiple mandatory directions: (1) SGMs to be attended only by elected office-bearers; (2) Lodha recommendations to be implemented “as far as practicable” immediately, with a comprehensive draft Constitution to be finalised under Court oversight; (3) BCCI office-bearers to cooperate or face consequences; (4) CoA to decide Puducherry affiliation and process funding requests; (5) Bihar to be restored to national competition. Several contempt proceedings were DISPOSED OF as infructuous or withdrawn.
Implications: The orders reinforce the Supreme Court’s supervisory authority over sports-governance reforms and signal that non-compliance with court-approved administrative recommendations will invite strict sanctions. While no new legal precedent was formally articulated, the directions substantially shape the governance framework of Indian cricket until a final constitution is approved.
(2018) 16 SCC 39
Order dated 24-7-2017
(Before Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014, 1155 of 2015, Writ Petition (C) No. 46 of 2017, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 46, 47 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, SLPs (C) No. … CCs Nos. 4759 and 4762 of 2017, Writ Petition (C) No. 287 of 2017, Contempt Petition (C) No. 959 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2015
1. Heard Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae, who has placed the Fourth Status Report dated 9-7-2017, submitted by the Committee of Administrators. We have also heard Mr Parag P. Tripathi and Mr C.U. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Committee of Administrators. The issue of disqualification of the “Representatives” was argued at length. Mr Subramaniam, Mr Tripathi and Mr Singh would submit that a person who is disqualified in terms of the report of the Justice Lodha Committee should not be a “nominee” or representative of any of the Association. Per contra, Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the noticees, would contend that the regulations which have been framed by the Justice Lodha Committee, do not debar a representative or a nominee to participate in the Special General Meeting (SGM). At this juncture, all concerned conceded that they are absolutely for the interest of the game, for India has flourished in the sphere of the game of cricket in the world.
2. Regard being had to the submissions canvassed at the Bar, we direct as follows:
(a) The Special General Meeting shall be held at the time and date fixed.
(b) The meeting shall be attended only by the office-bearers of the Associations, not by nominees or representatives.
(c) All concerned shall implement the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee Report as far as practicable, barring the issues which have been raised pertaining to membership, number of members of the selection committee, concept of associate membership, etc. The purpose is to implement the report as far as practicable and, thereafter, it shall be debated as to how the scheme of things can be considered so that the cricket, the “gentleman's game”, remains nearly perfect. Be it noted, the issue with regard to disqualification or qualification of the representative is kept open.
3. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Puneet Bali, learned Senior Counsel have submitted their suggestions in sealed covers as to who will be in the Committee of Administrators. The sealed covers be kept on record. The decision in that regard shall be rendered on the next date.
4. List the matter at 2.00 p.m. on 18-8-2017, for consideration of two issues, namely, the implementation of Justice Lodha Committee report as far as practicable by BCCI and the State Associations, which shall be attended only by the office-bearers and none else and the second, two names which are to be chosen to fill up the vacancies that has arisen in the Committee of Administrators.
SLP (C) No. … CC No. 4762 of 2017 and SLP (C) No. … CC No. 4759 of 2017
5. It is submitted by Mr A. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the special leave petitions have been rendered infructuous and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
(2018) 16 SCC 40
Order dated 23-8-2017
(Before Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014, 1155 of 2015, Writ Petition (C) No. 46 of 2017, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 46, 47 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, Writ Petition (C) No. 287 of 2017, Contempt Petition (C) No. 959 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2014
6. On 24-7-2017, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following directions were issued:
“(a) The Special General Meeting shall be held at the time and date fixed.
(b) The meeting shall be attended only by the office-bearers of the Associations, not by nominees or representatives.
(c) All concerned shall implement the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee Report as far as practicable, barring the issues which have been raised pertaining to membership, number of members of the selection committee, concept of associate membership, etc. The purpose is to implement the report as far as practicable and, thereafter, it shall be debated as to how the scheme of things can be considered so that cricket, the “gentleman's game”, remains nearly perfect. Be it noted, the issue with regard to disqualification or qualification of the representative is kept open.”
7. It is submitted by Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Committee of Administrators that none of the recommendations of Justice Lodha Committee have been implemented.
8. Mr Puneet Bali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the office-bearers of BCCI, would submit that certain recommendations have been implemented. The said voice is echoed by Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the Associations.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate to direct the Committee of Administrators to prepare a draft Constitution in terms of the main judgment as well as the order dated 24-7-2017. A copy of the draft Constitution shall be handed over to Advocates-on-Record assisting the learned counsel for the respondents. A copy of the draft Constitution be also handed over to Mr B.K. Prasad, learned counsel assisting Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General. Suggestions, if any, to the draft Constitution be handed over to the learned counsel assisting the learned Amicus Curiae and Mr Parag P. Tripathi so that they can prepare a chart and will be in a position to give their comments.
10. Be it stated, as per the previous order appointment of two members to the Committee of Administrators was to be considered today. The said exercise shall be carried out at 2 p.m. on 19-9-2017. The earlier date fixed for hearing i.e. 5-9-2017, stands cancelled. On the next date of hearing, besides the three aspects that have been mentioned in the order dated 24-7-2017, any aspect which is sought to be raised by the Associations can be raised. But, it is to be impressed that the suggestion must have acceptable sanctity. It should not be raised for the sake of raising an objection.
11. In the meantime, notice of show cause be issued to Mr C.K. Khanna, Mr Anirudh Chaudhry and Mr Amitabh Choudhary, the office-bearers of BCCI, so that they can explain why nothing could happen in the last Special General Meeting with regard to the implementation of the report of the Justice Lodha Committee. They shall also remain personally present before this Court on the next date of hearing i.e. at 2 p.m. on 19-9-2017. Call on the date fixed.
(2018) 16 SCC 42
Order dated 21-9-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014, 1155 of 2015, Writ Petition (C) No. 46 of 2017, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 46, 47 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, Writ Petition (C) No. 287 of 2017, Contempt Petition (C) No. 959 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2015
12. In pursuance of our earlier order dated 23-8-2017, Mr C.K. Khanna, Mr Anirudh Chaudhry and Mr Amitabh Choudhary, the office-bearers of BCCI are personally present.
13. In the course of hearing, it is submitted by Mr Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Committee of Administrators that though a draft constitution was handed over to the office-bearers of BCCI and also to all concerned, no suggestion has been received and a concerted attempt has been adopted by the office-bearers of BCCI not to follow the judgment of this Court.
14. We may hasten to add that in our previous order dated 24-7-2017, we have clearly indicated that three to four aspects shall be debated. The suggestions in that regard can be given to Mr Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Committee of Administrators. Needless to emphasise, Mr C.K. Khanna, Mr Anirudh Chaudhry and Mr Amitabh Choudhary, office-bearers of BCCI shall fully cooperate while giving the suggestions. If the aforesaid three office-bearers do not give suggestions in accordance with the judgment of this Court which has accepted the Justice Lodha Committee Report, they shall face serious consequences. The draft constitution shall include the suggestions given by Justice Lodha Committee in its entirety so that a holistic document comes before this Court. After the document is placed before the Court, 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, shall be considered. The suggestions shall be given within three weeks hence. 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 BCCI shall not hold a General Body Meeting.
15. At this juncture, an issue has arisen with regard to the associate membership for the Union Territory of Puducherry. There are three claimants. We do not intend to get into that. We ask the Committee of Administrators to supply the report of the Affiliation Committee to all the contesting associations and, thereafter, take a decision which shall be a reasoned. The association chosen by the Committee of Administrators shall be allowed to represent Puducherry if they are found fit. The Committee of Administrators shall afford an opportunity of hearing and decide the matter within two weeks hence. The contesting parties shall cooperate, otherwise the Committee of Administrators is under an obligation to take a decision within the stipulated time-frame.
16. At this juncture, Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Maharashtra Cricket Association, who has filed IA No. 83844 of 2017, prays for release of Rs 4,91,29,687 in favour of the applicant Association or the bank directly and further to release the rest of the amount at the earliest for the purpose of maintenance of the stadium and continuation of cricketing practice. Mr Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Committee of Administrators has submitted that a system is in place for clearing such claims as stated in a letter dated 12-4-2017. Regard being had to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we direct that the Association shall apply to the Committee of Administrators in terms of the communication dated 12-4-2017, within one week and, thereafter, the Committee of Administrators shall take appropriate steps so that interest of cricket is not jeopardised and the Association does not face any kind of litigation and undue harassment. If the claims are not accepted by the Committee of Administrators, it shall ascribe reasons. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.
17. At this juncture, similar grievances were agitated by the Saurashtra Cricket Association and the Assam Cricket Association. The order that has been passed in respect of Maharashtra Cricket Association shall apply on all fours to Saurashtra Cricket Association, Assam Cricket Association or any other association.
18. Before parting with the order passed today, we may state that Mr Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the Justice Lodha Committee has requested a clarification on whether it should deal with the grievance in respect of certain matters. In our considered opinion and keeping in view the order dated 2-1-2017 (2017) 2 SCC 333, Justice Lodha Committee may not entertain any further representation unless it is referred by this Court.
19. Let the matter be listed at 2 p.m. on 30-10-2017. Mr C.K. Khanna, Mr Anirudh Chaudhry and Mr Amitabh Choudhary, the office-bearers of BCCI shall remain personally present on the next date of hearing.
(2018) 16 SCC 43
Order dated 30-10-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014, 1155 of 2015, Writ Petition (C) No. 46 of 2017, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 46, 47 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, Writ Petition (C) No. 287 of 2017, Contempt Petition (C) No. 959 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2015
20. In pursuance of our earlier order, the draft Constitution has been filed. In view of the aforesaid, the personal presence of Mr C.K. Khanna, Mr Anirudh Chaudhry and Mr Amitabh Choudhary, the office-bearers of BCCI, stands dispensed with. The appointment of the members of the Committee of Administrators shall be considered on the next date of hearing. Let the matter be listed on 29-11-2017.
(2018) 16 SCC 44 (1)
Order dated 29-11-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 with Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 46, 47 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, Writ Petition (C) No. 287 of 2017, Civil Appeals Nos. 4236 of 2014, 1155 of 2015, Writ Petition (C) No. 46 of 2017, Contempt Petition (C) No. 959 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2015, Contempt Petition (C) No. 1835 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014
21. In the course of hearing, Mr Gopal Subramanium and Mr Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel have produced a communication dated 29-11-2017 by the Solicitor of the Committee of Administrators. A copy of the said letter along with annexures has been served on Mr Gunjan Rishi, the assisting counsel of Mr Puneet Bali, learned Senior Counsel. Let the reply to the said letter along with annexures be filed within two weeks hence.
22. The matter be listed in the second week of January, 2018 on a non-miscellaneous day. All the IAs shall be considered on the same day. The grievance of the Puducherry Cricket Association shall also be considered on the same day. The Committee of Administrators is directed to file the chart on that day which would reflect their comments on the draft Constitution and the suggestions thereof. The SGM shall function as per the previous direction and there shall not be any deviation therefrom.
23. Mr Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel submits that he has filed IA No. 124996 of 2017 on behalf of the Uttarakhand Cricket Association for intervention. The grievance made in the application shall be looked into by the Committee of Administrators. IA stands disposed of accordingly.
24. Mr Rahul Mehra, learned counsel submits that he has filed IA No. 110509 of 2017 on behalf of the Association of Chhattisgarh Cricket. The grievance made in the application shall be looked into by the Committee of Administrators. IA stands disposed of accordingly.
(2018) 16 SCC 44 (2)
Order dated 1-5-2018
(Before Dipak Misra, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Contempt Petition (C) No. 970 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 7645 of 2011
25. Heard Mr Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae. Mr Gopal Subramanium, assured that the State of Bihar shall be conferred with all the benefits to play matches of the Ranji Trophy Season commencing from the month of September 2018. The said position is accepted by Mr Parag P. Tripathi and Mr C.U. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Committee of Administrators. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives in this contempt petition and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 46 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014
26. Mr Chetan Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present contempt petition, as it has become infructuous. The prayer is allowed. The contempt petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(2018) 16 SCC 45
Order dated 11-5-2018
(Before Dipak Misra, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Civil Appeals No. 4235 of 2014 with Nos. 4236 of 2014, 1155 of 2015, Writ Petition (C) No. 46 of 2017, Contempt Petition (C) No. 47 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, Writ Petition (C) No. 287 of 2017, Contempt Petition (C) No. 959 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2015, Contempt Petition (C) No. 1835 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014
27. Let this matter be listed at 2.00 p.m. on 5-7-2018. In the meantime, the suggestions of Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae shall be supplied to all the parties, so that they can give their own suggestions, if any, to him. This can be considered on the next date of hearing. The claim of the Union Territory of Puducherry shall also be dealt with on the next date of hearing.
28. Mr Pai Amit, learned counsel, who has filed IA No. 19 of 2016 on behalf of the UT Cricket Association, Chandigarh, shall put forth his grievance before the Committee of Administrators by way of a representation. Call on date fixed.
Alert