BCCI v.

Cricket Association of Bihar, 2016 8 SCC 535

Facts
The BCCI in 2007 decided to launch the Indian Premier League (IPL).
In April 2013, Delhi police received information regarding spot fixing in IPL and charger
were levelled under section 420[4]and 120-B[5] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In 2013, before the High Court of Bombay two PIL's were filed by the Cricket Association of
Bihar.
A writ of mandamus was presented before the petitioner requesting the Court to direct the
BCCI to recall its order constituting a probe committee comprising two retired Judges of the
Madras High Court to enquire into the allegations of betting and spot fixing in the IPL made
against Raj Kundra, owner of Rajasthan Royals; and Gurunath Meiyappan, son in-law of N.
Srinivasan.
Petitioner requested for termination of Contract of IPL franchisees Chennai super King and
Rajasthan Royals with BCCI and initiation of disciplinary proceeding against N. Srinivasan.
Based on the Bombay High Court decision, three appeals were filed before the Supreme
Court. Cricket Association of Bihar were filed two appeals and one by the BCCI. All the
appeals were heard and settled jointly.
Therefore, Cricket association of Bihar then appealed to the Supreme Court after being not
satisfied by the decision of the High Court.

Justice R.M. Lodha Committee Report Findings

The Lodha Committee accordingly heard the individuals and the Franchisees found guilty by
Mudgal Committee and by an order dated 14th July 2015 awarded punishments considered
just and proper. The Committee also by a separate report dated 18th December 2015
examined the role of Mr. Sundar Raman and exonerated him of the charges levelled against
him. By a separate report dated 18th December, 2015, the Committee has recommended
several steps and measures that would in its opinion streamline the working of the BCCI and
possibly prevent any aberrations or controversies in which it has been embroiled in the past. 
At the same time certain other intervenors have stoutly supported the report of the Committee
and the recommendations made therein. For instance, intervening applications made by Mr.
B.S. Bedi and Mr. Kirti Azad, Cricket Association of Pondicherry and several others have
supported the recommendations made by Justice Lodha Committee. The recommendations
are also supported by the respondent Cricket Association of Bihar, who has prayed for
acceptance of the recommendations and issue of directions for appropriate follow up action in
implementation of the same.

Based on the interactions held and the responses received from various quarters, the
Committee identified the problem areas in the functioning of the BCCI, and upon an in-depth
appraisal of the material and the interactive sessions held by the Committee came to the
definite conclusion that BCCI has been suffering from many ills that had become endemic
due to the apathy and involvement of those at the helm of the Board’s administration.
The Committee recorded a specific finding that the problems faced by the BCCI have been
compounded by the involvement/association of many high functionaries in the Central and
State Governments some of whom had remained in charge of the administration of the BCCI
for several decades.

It also concluded that many officials of the State Associations were holding power without
any accountability and transparency by converting the Associations into personal fiefdoms.

It found inequities writ large at the high table with some States over-represented in votes,
tournament participation and central funding while others were made to wait endlessly in the
wings for indefinite period until favored.

The Committee found that policies had been formulated and altered to suit the needs of a few
powerful individuals and that coteries had been formed around them which had polarized and
compromised independent leadership. The Committee regretfully found that those who had
no such agendas had remained quiet, their silence emboldening further malfeasance.

It found that cricket players, who are sport’s biggest drivers, had also not been spared from
the apathy of the BCCI as they were treated less like assets and more like employees and
subordinates of those governing the game.

Some of those measures like uploading of the Constitution and Bye Laws on the BCCI
website, creating a policy for avoidance of Conflict of interest and appointment of
Ombudsman had also been taken.

The Committee found that the Indian Premier League (IPL) which was a remunerative and
glamourized component in India had unsavory interference at the highest echelons of cricket
and the overlapping and conflicting interests were not only condoned, but those in the
management of the Board had made ex-post facto amendments to facilitate the same.

The Committee did not hesitate to recognize the hard work of BCCI staff members and match
officials who had ensured that hundreds of matches are organized annually at all levels and
that updates are provided to keep the BCCI fully informed.

Charity matches for national causes and humanitarian assistance is another area in which
BCCI has been applauded by the Committee while stating that the Committee has
consciously ensured that no measures are recommended that would limit or interfere with the
good work being done on behalf of the BCCI.

The report submitted by the Committee further indicates that while the Committee was still in
the process of hearing the concerned, the newly elected President of the BCCI had even
without waiting for the Committee’s report adopted and projected the Committee’s views as
his roadmap for improving the functioning of the BCCI.

Some of those measures like uploading of the Constitution and Bye Laws on the BCCI
website, creating a policy for avoidance of Conflict of interest and appointment of
Ombudsman had also been taken. The Committee, however, found that although these steps
were in the right direction, the same were neither comprehensive nor substantive. The need of
the hour observed the Committee was not of making cosmetic changes but those that are
fundamental for laying proper foundations on which the BCCI could function in a
professional and transparent manner bringing cricket back to its pristine form and restoring
the confidence of the cricketers and lovers of the game alike.

The Committee said: “The current governance structure of the BCCI and its Member
Associations is far from satisfactory and it needs to be suitably restructured. Strict terms and
tenures have to be imposed on administrators, oversight and audit of member associations
need to be carried out, professional management deserves to be introduced in the
administration of the game, all States require an equal say in the affairs of the BCCI, financial
prudence has to be exercised, independent views in Governance are imperative and cricketers
have to be protected and given a free hand in cricketing affairs. There also ought to be an
Ombudsman, an Ethics Officer and an Electoral Officer who can provide institutional
resolution while principles of transparency and conflict of interest need to be infused without
further delay.”

In ‘Chapter One’ of its report, the Committee dealt with the Structure and Constitution of
BCCI, identified the problems that arise from their status and the need for reform in the
same.

“Chapter One: The Structure the BCCI now consists of 30 Full Members some of whom do
not field teams, while others do not represent any territory. Twenty States and one Union
Territory are included, and ten States and six Union Territories remain either excluded or
disenfranchised. In addition, officially there are Associate and Affiliate Members as well as
so-called Future Members.

The Services Sports Control Board, the Railways Sport Promotion Board and All India
Universities represent national service groups, who traditionally constituted the largest
employers of Indian sportsmen before the advent of liberal private enterprise. Apart from
these, two Clubs – the Cricket Club of India at Mumbai and the National Cricket Club at
Kolkata also enjoy full membership of the BCCI.

An examination of the existing structure revealed the following anomalies:

Not all States are represented on the BCCI One old State (Bihar) and two new states
(Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand) and six North-Eastern States (Sikkim, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Mizoram) are unrepresented on the Board. Of course, the
most significant omission was Bihar, which, being the third most populous State in the nation
required the cricket representatives of its 100 million populaces to migrate to other States to
ply their trade. Apart from Tripura, the other six sister-States of the north-east had been
relegated to various categories of membership (Associate, Affiliate and Future) which really
have no voice on the Board.

Some States are over-represented Mainly attributable to their historic legacy, both
Maharashtra and Gujarat have 3 Full Members, each representing parts of their respective
States. Maharashtra therefore exercises votes through the Associations of Mumbai, Vidarbha
and Maharashtra while Gujarat fields the Associations of Baroda, Gujarat, and Saurashtra.

Some members do not represent territories The Services Sports Control Board, the Railways
Sport Promotion Board and All India Universities show that territorial divisions were not the
consistent criteria to determine membership of the BCCI. However, these members were
represented by teams that played competitive cricket.
Some members neither play matches nor represent territories Both the National Cricket Club
(NCC) at Kolkata and the Cricket Club of India (CCI) at Mumbai were more in the nature of
recreation clubs which neither fielded teams for tournaments nor had a geographical basis for
being Full Members of the BCCI. In fact, by virtue of CCI being granted full membership,
Maharashtra has garnered as many as four out of the total 30 votes on the Board.

Union Territories are unrepresented on the Board Except for Delhi which enjoys a special
position under the Constitution as well, none of the other six Union Territories are Full
Members of the BCCI. In fact, there have been repeated representations by the Cricket
Association of Pondicherry that just as Delhi, it is also a Union Territory with a Chief
Minister and ought to be made a Full Member. This issue is sub judice before the Madras
High Court but nonetheless, there seems that some artificial distinction exists in the extant
rules between Delhi and Puducherry.

Equally important is the Rule 3(b)(1) of the proposed Rules and Regulations which deals with
Membership and Jurisdiction of Members, which enumerates grounds for sanction and de-
recognition of a Full Member and reads as under: “3 (b) Grounds for sanction and
derecognition of a Full Member No Member shall be entitled to any grant from the BCCI if
its Constitution fails to provide for, or comply with the following within One year after the
Effective Date: The Association shall not have any provision for any post to be held for more
than 9 years.

The Committee has recorded a finding that with an individual-centric constitution the reins of
cricket’s richest and arguably most powerful national body remains mired in controversy and
seems to have strayed from its chosen path.

In Chapter eight of the report, the Committee has dealt with issues touching transparency and
oversight and has noted that BCCI in its website did not carry the existing constitution or the
bye-laws of BCCI.

The Committee, therefore, recommends that clear principles of transparency need to be laid
down and that all rules, regulations and office orders of the BCCI, the Constitution of the
various committees, their resolutions, their expenditures on the various heads, the reports of
the Ombudsman, Auditor, Electoral Officer, Ethics Officer and the annual reports and
balance sheet be uploaded on the BCCI Website.

It is necessary that there is uniformity in the constitution and functioning of the various
associations (without any office being created for life), that membership of social clubs be
divorced from the administration of cricket which is a sombre task, that cricketers be made
members and have a say in governance and that management be made professional. The State
Associations must also create avenues to generate revenue, improve infrastructure and
develop the sport, all of which will be marked through a detailed report card.

There also has to be an audit and independent oversight of how resources are allocated and
spent. It is necessary that all State Associations immediately transition to the use of tamper-
proof accounting software which either does not permit alterations or which records all
alterations made.

“In the light of all this, the Committee proposes that clear principles of transparency be laid
down, and the BCCI website and office will carry all rules, regulations and office orders of
the BCCI, the constitution of the various committees, their resolutions, the expenditures
under various heads, the reports of the Ombudsman/Auditor/Electoral Officer/Ethics Officer
and the annual reports and balance sheets. In addition, norms and procedures shall be laid
down for the engagement of service professionals and contractors, and there shall be full
transparency of all tenders floated and bids invited by or on behalf of the BCCI. The website
shall also have links to the various stadia with seating capacities and transparent direct
ticketing facilities.

Ad-hoc creation of Membership categories : The Regulations of the BCCI only speak of
three categories of members – Full, Associate and Affiliate. However, we find that there is a
list of six “Future Members”, a category that does not have a legal basis. This consists of
Uttarakhand, Mizoram, Telangana, Chandigarh, Puducherry, and Andaman & Nicobar. Such
a classification seems a half-way house with no real purpose except to give the association an
illusion that it will be promoted at some vague point in the future.

Arbitrary addition and removal of associations for reasons best known to the BCCI, despite
being a Full Member, the Rajasthan Cricket Association has been treated as disenfranchised,
resulting in the players of the State being forced to move elsewhere to compete. The non-
addition of the Bihar Cricket Association or an equivalent has also led to such a denial to the
players from Bihar.

Judgement

A two judge bench gave the reference of the case Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of
India and Ors. (2005)[6] 4 SCC 649 where the court held that BCCI was not ‘State within the
meaning of Article 12 with the majority of 3:2. This court held that the Board was not created
by any statue nor was a part of the government's share capital. Practically, there was financial
assistance provided by the government to the board and even when the Board did enjoy a
monopoly status in the field of cricket such status was not granted by state or even secured by
the state. So there is also no inevitable state control. The control, if any, is only regulatory in
nature as applicable to other related bodies. All functions of the board are not public
functions nor are they closely related to governmental functions. The Board is not created by
transfer of a government – owned corporation and was an autonomous body.
Relying upon the tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case, court held that, in order to
bring it within the word 'State' specified in Article 12 of the Constitution, the Board was not
governed financially, technically or administratively by or subject to control by the
Government. After referring the above case, in the current case court held that while the
BCCI is not ‘State’ within the context of Article 12 but it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction.