THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA versus CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS on 14 September 2022

[2022] 14 S.C.R. 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 ANDHIMA KOHLI, JJ.]

Sports: BCCI – Interim application filed by BCCI seeking theleave of this Court to give effect to certain amendments in theirConstitution – Held: With regard to amendment in Clause 6(4) ofthe existing Constitution which contains the stipulation that an officebearer who has held any post for two consecutive terms either in astate association or in the BCCI or a combination of both shall notbe eligible to contest any further election without completing acooling off period of three years – BCCI seeking the requirement ofa cooling off period to confine only to the posts of President andSecretary – The amicus curiae proposed a bifurcation of the existingprovision by introducing similar requirements of cooling off periodsboth at the level of the BCCI and in the state associations – Thepurpose for which the cooling off period was introduced, wouldnot be diluted by the proposed amendment, subject to the stipulationssuggested by the amicus curiae – The proposed stipulation that thecooling off period comes into effect after two consecutive terms atthe same level namely, at the state associations or the BCCI doesnot abrogate the purpose of a cooling off period – Hence, thesuggestions stipulated by amicus curia accepted – With regard toamendment in Clause 6(5) which states the grounds ofdisqualification from being an office bearer, a member of thegoverning council or any Committee or a representative to theInternational Cricket Council or any similar organization – Thestipulation that the disqualification should attach on a convictionof an offence was accepted – However, the further condition that adisqualification would follow upon a sentence of imprisonment ofthree years or more not accepted – Certain other amendments weresought on the basis of above amendments, hence, accepted.

519

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

ADisposing of the interim application, the Court HELD: 1. The existing position is that: (i) A person who iselected as an office bearer in a state association for twoconsecutive terms would have to undergo a cooling off period;(ii) A person who is elected as an office bearer at the BCCI forBtwo consecutive period would have to undergo a cooling off period;and (iii) A person who is elected as an office bearer in a stateassociation for one term followed by election as an office bearerat the BCCI for one term would similarly have to undergo a coolingoff period. The consequence, therefore, is that a person who hasheld office as an elected office bearer for only one term at theCBCCI would have to undergo a cooling off period. The submissionis that the application of a cooling off period after one term at aparticular level (the BCCI or state association, as the case maybe on after an immediately prior term at another level) is undulystringent and needs to be modified having regard to the purpose Dfor which the cooling off period was introduced. [Paras 14 and15][528-D-H]

2. BCCI is an autonomous sports body. The judgment ofthis court did not abrogate its power, as a registered society, toamend its Constitution. The stipulation that an amendment beEcarried by a three fourths majority and should not be implementedwithout the prior leave of this court is in order to ensure that thepurpose underlying the adoption of the Constitution of BCCI isnot defeated. The purpose for which the cooling off period wasintroduced, would not be diluted by the proposed amendment,subject to the stipulations suggested by the amicus curiae. TheFproposed stipulation that the cooling off period comes into effectafter two consecutive terms at the same level namely, at the stateassociations or the BCCI does not abrogate the purpose of acooling off period. Therefore, the amendment as set out in Column3 above is accepted [Para 16][529-A-C]G

3. The next amendment is proposed to Clause 6(5) of theBCCI’s Constitution. As in the case of Clause 6(4), theamendment which was proposed to Clause 6(5) was deliberatedupon during the course of the hearing and certain suggestionshave been made in the course of the discussion by the amicus H

curiae. BCCI has submitted that the disqualification from holdingany office or post in a sports or athletic association or federationapart from cricket needs to be modified since several cricketersof eminence are associated with other sporting activities such asfootball and golf after retirement from cricket and there is noreason to disqualify them on that ground. Secondly, it has beensubmitted that the disqualification which is attached to a personwho is charged of having committed a criminal offence is proposedto be modified so as to apply to a person who is convicted of anoffence and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years.This amendment, it has been submitted, is intended to protectoffice bearers who may be subjected to frivolous prosecutions.Finally, it has been submitted that the expression “or holds apublic office” is over-broad and that the disqualification shouldonly apply to a person who holds office as a Minister orgovernment servant. [Paras 17 and 18][529-C-D; 530-F-H; 531-A]

4. The stipulation that the disqualification should attach ona conviction of an offence may be accepted. However, the furthercondition that a disqualification would follow upon a sentence ofimprisonment of three years or more cannot be accepted. Duringthe hearing, BCCI agreed that the disqualification would governa conviction and sentence of imprisonment. The reasons set outfor the other amendments are acceptable. [Para 19][531-B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: IA No. 49930 of 2020 inCivil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2013 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in Public Interest Litigation in PIL No.55 of2013.

Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Maninder Singh,Sr. Adv. (A.C.), R. Balasubramanian, Kapil Sibal, Ravindra Kumar,Rafique Dada, Anupam Lal Das, Jayant K. Mehta, Siddharth Dave, D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Advs., Sridhar Potaraju, Gaurav Sharma, SaurabhChadha, Tejveer Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Manmeet KaurSareen, Ms. Mitushi Goyal, Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Sindoora VNL, VikasShukla, Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Rajat Srivastava, Pranav Saigal, Ms. AshitaChawla, Ajay Sabarwal, Ms. Bina Madhavan, S. Uday Kumar Sagar, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAbhinav Mukherjee, Akanksha Mehra, Kanu Agarwal, Lakshay Saini,M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co, Senthil Jagadeesan, Abhishek Singh, NirnimeshDube, Kanu Agarwal, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, ArvindKumar Sharma, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Ambika Atrey, Akash Giri,Ms. Manju Sharma, Anish R. Shah, P. Narasimhan, V. K. Biju, Ms.Swathi H. Prasad, Ms. Ria Sachthey, Chetanya Singh, Amlendu KumarBAkhilesh Kumar Jha, Abhay Pratap Singh, Dr. Ranjeet Bharti, Ms. RubinaJawed, Ms. Celeste Agarwal, Ms. Akansha Agarwal, Mohan BabuAgarwal, Rameshwar Pd. Goyal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. BinaGupta, E. C. Agrawala, R. Chandrachud, Sarvesh Singh, Chirag M.Shroff, Azim H. Laskar, Bikas Kar Gupta, Chandra Bhushan Prasad,CAmol Chitale, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Nirnimesh Dube, Ritesh KumarChowdhary, Praveen Swarup, Santosh Kumar - I, Ms. Liz Mathew, Ms.Sonali Jain, Ms. Vasudha Jain, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Balaji Srinivasan,Ms. Rashmi Singh, Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Gagan Gupta, SantoshMishra, K. K. Mohan, Rahul Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh, Amit Singh, Ms.Parichita Ray, Shree Pal Singh, Sanveer Mehlwal, Ms. GeetanjaliDMehlwal, Mohit Yadav, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Arjun Garg, Ms.Sonia Mathur, Snehasish Mukherjee, Rajat Mittal, Pai Amit, Ms. PankhuriBhardwaj, Abhiyudaya Vats, Raj Bahadur Yadav, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,Nar Hari Singh, Hemant P., Rahul Verma, Udayaditya Banerjee, Ms.Nidhi Agarwal, Pushpinder Singh Sondhi, Sanjay Kumar Singh, AnandEPrakash, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ms. Charu Ambwani, Neeraj Shekhar,Ms. Purnima Krishna, Mohammad Wasim, Aditya Ranjan, Samir AliKhan, Abhay S. Khandeparkar, Vikas Warerkar, Saurabh Jain, KaushikPoddar, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Shaddab Anwar,Prakhar Srivastav, Astik Gupta, Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Vipul Abhishek,Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Ms.FThashmitha Muthanna, Prashanth Dixit, M/s. Devasa & Co., K. KrishnaKumar, Jayant Mohan, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Sandeep Devashish Das,Deeptakirti Verma, Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Divyank DuttDwivedi, Ravi Singh Chhikara, Kaustubh Shukla, Tarun Gupta, ArjunSingh Bhati, Kabir Hathi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ankolekar Gurudatta, SahilGTagotra, Abhishek Pandey, Abhivyakti Banerjee, Anshuman Ashok,Ashok Panigrahi, Saurabh Trivedi Ms. Rachna Gandhi Shashank Shekhar,Ronak Baid, Khushant Wadhwa, Maneesh Pathak, Chander ShekharAshri, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Shalini Chandra,Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, GauravSharma, Rauf Rahim, Aditya Verma, M. P. Devanath, P. V. Yogeswaran,H

Rabin Majumder, Satya Sabharwal, Shamik Sanjanwala, Sukant Vikram,Rajesh, Sadapurna Mukherjee, Aakarsh Kamra, Balendu S., GauriGoburdhun, Advs. for the appearing parties.

Respondent-in-person

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. By the judgment of this Court in Board of Control for Cricketin India v Cricket Association of Bihar[1], the draft Constitution of theBoard of Control for Cricket in India[2] was approved. The Court stipulatedthat any amendment to the Constitution shall not be given effect to withoutthe leave of the Court. Clause 45 of the Constitution, as approved, containsthe following provision:

“These Rules and Regulations of the BCCI shall not be repealed,added to, amended or altered except when passed and adoptedby a 3/4th majority of the members present and entitled to vote ata Special General Meeting of the General Body convened for thepurpose or at the Annual General Meeting. Any such amendmentwill not be given effect to without the leave of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt.”

2. On 1 December 2019, certain amendments were approvedunanimously at the Annual General Meeting[3].

3. An interim application has been filed for seeking the leave ofthe Court to give effect to the amendments. Areference to the relevantclauses which are proposed to be amended would be necessary.

4. Clause 6(4) of the existing Constitution contains the stipulationthat an office bearer who has held any post for two consecutive termseither in a state association or in the BCCI or a combination of both shallnot be eligible to contest any further election without completing a coolingoff period of three years. During the cooling off period, there is aprohibition on an office bearer becoming a member of the GoverningCouncil or of any committee of the BCCI or of a state association. Therationale for adopting a cooling off period was elaborated in Section C

1 (2018) 9 SCC 624

2 “BCCI”

3 “AGM”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof the judgment of this Court. The rationale was explained in paragraph35 of the judgment in the following terms:

“…A cooling-off period has several features which are ofutmost importance:

(i) it is a safeguard against the development of vested personalBinterests;

(ii) it ensures against the concentration of power in a few hands;

(iii) it facilitates a dispersal of authority; and

(iv) it encourages the generation of a wider body of experiencedCadministrators.

Cooling-off must be accepted as a means to prevent a fewindividuals from regarding the administration of cricket as apersonal turf. The game will be better off without cricketingoligopolies.”D5. While explaining the proposed provision for a cooling off periodafter the completion of two consecutive terms, this Court provided thefollowing illustrations:

“However, in our view, it would be appropriate to direct that acooling-off period of three years would apply after an individualEholds two successive terms in office either in BCCI, or in anyState Association or a combination of the two. For instance, if anoffice-bearer has held office for two consecutive terms in anypost in a State Association, such an individual must face a cooling-off period of three years. Likewise, if an individual hasFheld any post as an office-bearer of BCCI for a total period of sixyears in succession, the individual must have a cooling-off periodof three years before seeking election again either to BCCI or toa State Association. The cooling-off period would apply also in asituation where an individual holds a post for one term in a StateAssociation followed by a post in BCCI successively or vice versa.GThis would ensure that after a period of six years involving twoconsecutive terms, a cooling-off period would be attracted.Allowing an individual to act as an office-bearer for six years incontinuation, is a sufficiently long period for experience andknowledge gained to be deployed in the interest of the gameHwithout at the same time resulting in a monopoly of power.”

6. An amendment of Clause 6.4 has been proposed on the groundthat the BCCI undertakes its activities both at the national and internationallevel. On the other hand, the activities of the state associations areconducted at the level of each state. Though there may be a degree ofoverlap between the functions associated at the state level, on the onehand, and the national level by the BCCI, on the other hand, it has beensubmitted that the functions are distinct in a large number of areas andactivities.

7. Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing on behalf of theapplicant, submitted that Clause 6(4), as approved by this Court, indicatesthat a person who has completed one term at the state level followed byone term at the BCCI would have to complete a cooling off period ofthree years. In other words, though an office bearer at the BCCI hascompleted only one term at the BCCI, the cooling off period would comeinto effect. It has been submitted that the unanimous view at the AGMis that this provision should be modified so as to stipulate that the coolingoff period would come into effect after an office bearer has completedtwo consecutive terms at the same level, that is in a state association orat the BCCI. In other words, an office bearer who completes twoconsecutive terms in a state association would necessarily have tocomplete a cooling off period of three years before assuming any electedoffice at the state association. Likewise, an office bearer who completestwo consecutive terms at the BCCI would have to mandatorily undergoa cooling off period of three years before seeking any election at thelevel of the BCCI.

8. The amended provision, as proposed at the AGM, seeks toconfine the requirement of a cooling off period only to the posts ofPresident and Secretary. The amendment as proposed envisages in otherwords that the cooling off period will not apply to other posts.

9. Mr Maninder Singh, senior counsel, who was requested to assistthis Court as an amicus curiae, submitted that there would be nojustification to confine the cooling off period only to the post of Presidentand Secretary and must extend to all other office bearers of the BCCIand the state associations.

10. In order to bring clarity to the position, a tabulated chart hasbeen placed before this Court indicating:

(i) The existing provision;

ABC

DE

F

G

H

526SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(ii)The amended provision proposed by BCCI; and

(iii) The proposed clause after incorporating the suggestionsmade by the amicus curiae.

11. The tabulated position (in track mode) reads as follows:

BC

D

E

F

G

H

527ABCDEFGH

A12. As the above tabulation indicates, the amicus curiae hasproposed a bifurcation, for the sake of clarity, of the existing provisionby introducing similar requirements of cooling off periods both at thelevel of the BCCI and in the state associations. Clause 6(4), as originallyincorporated, is hence sought to be bifurcated separately for the BCCIand the state associations. The Solicitor General has stated that theBamendment as proposed by the amicus curiae is acceptable to the BCCI.

A

13. Having considered the application and the reasons which havebeen set out, we are of the considered view that the amendment asproposed in the third column above, should be accepted in terms of thesuggestions of the amicus curiae. The reasons for accepting the aboveCproposal are indicated below.

14. The principal rationale for adopting a cooling off period hasbeen explained in the judgment of this Court, extracted above. This Courthad adopted the rationale that the cooling off period would kick in afteran individual holds two successive terms in office either at the BCCI orDin any state association or a combination of the two. The effectiveconsequence of the existing position is that:

(i) A person who is elected as an office bearer in a stateassociation for two consecutive terms would have to undergoa cooling off period; E

(ii) A person who is elected as an office bearer at the BCCIfor two consecutive period would have to undergo a coolingoff period; and

(iii) A person who is elected as an office bearer in a stateFassociation for one term followed by election as an officebearer at the BCCI for one term would similarly have toundergo a cooling off period.

15. The consequence, therefore, is that a person who has heldoffice as an elected office bearer for only one term at the BCCI wouldhave to undergo a cooling off period. The submission is that theGapplication 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 immediatelyprior term at another level) is unduly stringent and needs to be modifiedhaving regard to the purpose for which the cooling off period wasintroduced.H

16. BCCI is an autonomous sports body. The judgment of thisAcourt did not abrogate its power, as a registered society, to amend itsConstitution. The stipulation that an amendment be carried by a threefourths majority and should not be implemented without the prior leaveof this court is in order to ensure that the purpose underlying the adoptionof the Constitution of BCCI is not defeated.The purpose for which theBcooling off period was introduced, would not be diluted by the proposedamendment, subject to the stipulations suggested by the amicus curiae.The proposed stipulation that the cooling off period comes into effectafter two consecutive terms at the same level namely, at the stateassociations or the BCCI does not abrogate the purpose of a cooling offperiod. We, therefore, accept the amendment as set out in Column 3Cabove.

A

17. The next amendment is proposed to Clause 6(5) of the BCCI’sConstitution. As in the case of Clause 6(4), the amendment which wasproposed to Clause 6(5) was deliberated upon during the course of thehearing and certain suggestions have been made in the course of theDdiscussion by the amicus curiae. The position is tabulated below (intrack mode):

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 14 S.C.R.

A

B

CD

E

F18. BCCI has submitted that the disqualification from holding anyoffice or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart fromcricket needs to be modified since several cricketers of eminence areassociated with other sporting activities such as football and golf afterretirement from cricket and there is no reason to disqualify them on thatGground. Secondly, it has been submitted that the disqualification which isattached to a person who is charged of having committed a criminaloffence is proposed to be modified so as to apply to a person who isconvicted of an offence and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment ofthree years. This amendment, it has been submitted, is intended to protectoffice bearers who may be subjected to frivolous prosecutions. Finally,H

it has been submitted that the expression “or holds a public office” isover-broad and that the disqualification should only apply to a personwho holds office as a Minister or government servant.

A

19. The stipulation that the disqualification should attach on aconviction of an offence may be accepted. However, the further conditionthat a disqualification would follow upon a sentence of imprisonment ofthree years or more cannot be accepted. During the hearing, BCCIagreed that the disqualification would govern a conviction and sentenceof imprisonment. The reasons set out for the other amendments areacceptable. Subject to what has been observed above, the amendmentas tabulated in column 3 above does not detract from the basic purposeand object underlying the judgment of this Court. The amendment, asproposed in Column 3 above, is hence permitted to be effected.

B

C

B

C

20. An amendment has been proposed to Clauses 14.3 and 14.4,as well as to Clause 3(b)(vii) which are consequential to the amendmentswhich have been made to Clauses 6(4) and 6(5). The amendments toDClauses 14.3 and 14.4 and Clause 3(b)(vii) are in the following terms:

E

F

G

H

532SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ABCDEFGH

[2022] 14 S.C.R.

ABC

DEFGH

A21. Certain amendments of an administrative nature are proposedin Clauses 7(3), 15(3) and (4) and 19(2), which are tabulated below:BCDEFGH

THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKETASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

535ABCDEFGH

A

B

22. The above amendments as tabulated in Column 3 above areCaccepted.

23 An amendment was sought in Clause 45 to delete the provisionrequiring the leave of the Court to amend BCCI’s Constitution. Theproposed amendment is not pressed by BCCI.

D24. Paragraphs 45.2 and 45.3 of the earlier judgment of this Courtdated 9 August 2018 reported in (2018) 9 SCC 624 contains the followingdirections:

“45.2. Upon the registration of the said Constitution of BCCI, eachof the members shall undertake registration of theirrespective Constitutions on similar lines within a period ofE30 days thereafter. A compliance certificate must befurnished to the CoA, which shall file a status report beforethis Court with reference to the compliance undertaken bythe State Associations; and 45.3. In the event that any State Association does not undertakeFcompliance with the abovesaid directions, the directionscontained in the orders of this Court dated 7-10-2016[BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, (2016) 10 SCC 23] and21-10-2016 [BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, (2016) 10 SCC231] shall revive.”

G25. The above directions shall also apply to the amendments asapproved by the present judgment.

26. Mr Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, counsel, appeared in theseproceedings on behalf of two individuals who were earlier, members ofan entity called Association of Bihar Cricket. While opposing theH

THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKETASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

amendments, counsel submitted that any modification of the clauses inthe terms as proposed would affect the underlying object of the provisionsin the original Constitution.

27. Having carefully assessed the grievance, we do not find anymerit for the reasons which we have already indicated.

28. The interim application is accordingly disposed of in the aboveterms.

Devika Gujral

Interim application disposed of.

(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H