NDLI: S. Sreesanth Vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Cricket Disciplinary Committee Natural Justice. One-man Commission report Spot fixing Ban for life
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Cricket: Spot fixing – Ban for life – Plea of violation of rules of natural justice – In the instant case, appellant was registered player and participated in IPL match – Allegation against the appellant was that in the match played on 09.05.2013 between Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab at Mohali, in exchange of Rs.10 lakh, he agreed to concede 14 or more runs in the second over of bowling spell – One-man Commission which was constituted by BCCI on direction of Supreme Court submitted a Preliminary report – The report relied on the video clipping and recordings of telephone conversation and opined that there was sufficient evidence against the appellant to prove him guilty of various Articles of Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI – The report also stated that the Commissioner had no access to the appellant as he was in police custody – After the appellant was released from police custody, he appeared before the Commissioner and gave his statement – Thereafter the Commissioner submitted Supplementary report accusing the appellant of offences under the Anti-Corruption Code – Disciplinary Committee heard the appellant and communicated its decision of banning him from playing or representing for life – Appellant raised plea that principles of natural justice was violated as the transcripts of telephone conversation relied by the Disciplinary Committee of the BCCI was not provided to him and further he was not confronted with transcript of the telephone conversation relied on by it –Held: The transcripts of telephone conversations were received by the appellant from the Police much before issuance of the show-cause notice by the Disciplinary Committee – The submission of Preliminary Report without taking statement of the appellant was in the circumstances that the appellant was in the Police custody and under the order of Supreme Court, the Commissioner had to submit report within 15 days – When the appellant was released from the custody, his statement was duly taken and after considering his statement further Supplementary Report was submitted – In the show-cause notice with respect to the material relied by the Disciplinary Committee, the appellant was given full opportunity to have his say – Thus, there was no violation of principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Committee –Doctrines/Principles – Natural Justice.Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Allegation of betting, bringing disrepute to the game and failure to disclose to the ACU BCCI full details of any approaches and invitations to engage in conduct that amounted to breach of the Code – Whether Disciplinary Authority was right in holding that there were sufficient materials to hold the appellant guilty of offences of corruption under various articles of Anti-corruption Code – Held:There being specific allegations made against the appellant in the show-cause notice, it was incumbent on the appellant to have explained the evidence and circumstances which were sought to be relied against the appellant – In the disciplinary proceedings a delinquent has to explain circumstances and evidence relied againsthim – It is true that the charges have to be proved by the BCCI for taking any action under the Anti-Corruption Code – The Disciplinary Committee of the BCCI had jurisdiction to form its own opinion after considering the evidence on record including the telephonic conversation and other evidence on the record – The conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Committee on the basis of the material cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity which may warrant judicial review by the constitutional courts – Judicial Review. Cricket BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Article 3.1 – Whether the Disciplinary Committee has rightly placed burden of proof on the appellant whereas according to Anti-Corruption Code under Article 3.1, the burden of proof was on the designated Anti-Corruption Official and whether by wrongly placing the burden of proof the Disciplinary Committee has erred in recordingits conclusion – Held: Article 3.1 deals with burden of proof and standard of proof – The initial burden of proof is on the Designated Anti-Corruption Official i.e. Disciplinary Committee which has to form its opinion about the commission of designated offences by the delinquent – Before taking the decision when show-cause notice is served on the appellant making allegations and referring to relevant materials in support of the said allegation, it was incumbent on the appellant to have satisfactorily explained each and every circumstances or evidence referred to and relied – When the explanation submitted by the appellant was not found satisfactory, he having not been able to satisfactorily explain the allegations which were noticed from the telephone conversation between the appellant and the bookie, it cannot be said that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the appellant – Initial burden as referred to in Article 3.1 stood discharged when the allegation referring to materials and evidence are communicated to delinquent – Standard of proof as referred to in Article 3.1 is thatthe BCCI Disciplinary Committee is to be comfortably satisfied,bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that is being made,that the alleged offence has been committed – Of course, on mere doubt the Disciplinary Committee cannot hold offences proved, there has to be a positive evidence and finding regarding the proof ofoffences – The burden of proof was not wrongly placed on the appellant.Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Burden of proof,standard – The standard of proof in a disciplinary inquiry and in atrial of a criminal case are entirely different – In a criminal case itis essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in disciplinary inquiry under Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI the preponderance of probability is to serve the purpose.Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Criminal case –Discharge of appellant from the criminal case – Whether the discharge order has any effect on the disciplinary proceeding of BCCI under Anti-Corruption Code – Held: There is a vast distinction in the scope of inquiry between a criminal trial on one hand and disciplinary inquiry against a public servant or disciplinary inquiry under Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI on other hand – The question before the Sessions Court was whether the appellant was guilty of offences under the criminal statutes –Sessions Court had not to deal with the question whether the appellant was guilty of violating Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI – The clauses which the appellant breached under the Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI were entirely different from the offences under which the appellant had been charged before the Sessions Court – The ingredients required to establish a breach of the BCCI Code are also distinct and separate from the ingredients required to prove offences under the penal statutes – The conclusions and observations as recorded in the disciplinary proceedings under Anti-Corruption Code were entirely different from proof of criminal charges which are on higher yardstick to prove –Thus, the discharge order had no effect on the disciplinary proceeding of BCCI under Anti-Corruption Code.Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Imposition of maximum sanction of life time ban by Disciplinary Committee on charges under Article 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 of the Anti-Corruption Code –Propriety of – Held: Sanction under Article 6 of Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI is nothing but punishment on commission of the offences and akin to sentencing in criminal jurisprudence – The principles of sentencing as applicable in offence under the Indian Penal Code may not be strictly applicable to one of punishment/sanction under the Anti-Corruption Code but principles of sentencing as applicable in the criminal jurisprudence may be relevant for imposing sanction under the Anti-Corruption Code – In cases where offences under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 are proved, the Disciplinary Committee is not obliged to award a life time ban in all cases where such offences are proved – When range of ineligibility which is minimum five years, maximum life time ban is provided for,the discretion to which, either minimum or maximum or in between has to be exercised on relevant facts and circumstances – No doubt,Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI envisages zero tolerance tocorruption – However, zero tolerance approach cannot dilute consideration of relevant factors while imposing sanction under Article 6 – Disciplinary Committee’s order did not advert to the aggravating and mitigating factors as enumerated in Articles 6.1.1and 6.1.2 – Without considering the relevant provisions of Anti-Corruption Code, the Disciplinary Committee imposed a lifetime ban on the appellant which sanction was not in accordance with the Anti-Corruption Code itself – Sentence/Sentencing. Disciplinary Committee: Constitution of – Propriety chal-lenged – Whether the constitution of Disciplinary Committee was vitiated by including Shri Srinivasan as President who had already stepped down on 02.06.2013 resulting in vitiation of entire proceedings – Held: There was no legal impediment in Shri Srinivasan participating in the Disciplinary Committee in the meeting of 13.09.2013 as President – The appellant having not taken this ground even in the grounds of appeal is not allowed to question the constitution of Disciplinary Committee at this stage.Administrative Law: Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review, scope of interference – Constitutional court in exercise ofjurisdiction of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Code of Conduct framed by the BCCI to interfere only when conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee are perverse or based on no evidence – On appreciation of evidence, it is not open for the High Court or Supreme Court to substitute its own opinion based on the appreciation of material on record on the charges proved – Cricket.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 382
Petitioner	S. Sreesanth
Respondent	The Board Of Control For Cricket In India & Ors.
SCR	[2019] 4 S.C.R. 765
Judgement Date	2019-03-15
Case Number	2424

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

S. Sreesanth Vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

Board of Control for Cricket Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

Board of Control for Cricket in India and Ors. Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Biahr & Ors.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Etc.

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

S. Sreesanth Vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.

S. Sreesanth Vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

Board of Control for Cricket Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

Board of Control for Cricket in India and Ors. Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Biahr & Ors.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Etc.

Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.

S. Sreesanth Vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.