advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, October 21, 2016

additional directions:- (i) BCCI shall forthwith cease and desist from making any disbursement of funds for any purpose whatsoever to any state association until and unless the state association concerned adopts a resolution undertaking to implement the recommendations of the Committee as accepted by this Court in its judgment dated 18 July 2016. After such a resolution is passed and before any disbursement of funds takes place to the state association concerned, a copy of the resolution shall be filed before the Committee and before this Court, together with an affidavit of the President of the state association undertaking to abide by the reforms contained in the report of the Committee, as modified by this Court. Any transfer of funds shall take place to the state associations which have accepted these terms only after compliance as above is effected. This direction is in addition to the previous direction of 7 October 2016 in regard to the disbursement to and appropriation by the state associations; (ii) (a) The Committee appointed by this Court is requested to appoint an independent auditor to scrutinise and audit the income received and expenditure incurred by BCCI; (b) The auditor shall also oversee the tendering process that will hereinafter be undertaken by BCCI, as well as the award of contracts above a threshold value to be fixed by the Committee; (c) The award of contracts by BCCI above the threshold fixed by the Committee shall be subject to the prior approval of the Committee; (d) The Committee shall be at liberty to obtain the advice of the auditors on the fairness of the tendering process which has been adopted by BCCI and in regard to all relevant facts and circumstances; (e) The Committee will determine whether a proposed contract above the threshold value should or should not be approved; and (f) The Committee will be at liberty to formulate the terms of engagement and reference to the auditors having regard to the above directions. BCCI shall defray the costs, charges and expenses of the auditors. (iii) The President and Secretary of BCCI shall within two weeks from today file a statement on affidavit indicating compliance made by BCCI of those of the recommendations of the Committee which have been complied with, the manner of compliance and the steps adopted for securing compliance with the remaining recommendations. They shall appear before the Committee to explain the manner of compliance. The President and Secretary, BCCI shall also keep the Committee apprised about the steps taken pursuant to the statement recorded in paragraph 18 above. (iv) An affidavit of compliance shall be filed before this Court on or before 3 December 2016 by the President and Secretary to BCCI in terms of paragraphs 17 and 18 above; and (v) The Secretary to the Committee appointed by this Court shall forward a copy of this order to Mr Shashank Manohar, Chairman ICC to facilitate the observations contained in paragraph 11 of this order. BCCI shall cooperate with the Committee and with the auditors by granting, in particular, full access to records, accounts and other information as required to facilitate implementation of these directions. 21 The hearing of the proceedings shall stand over to 5 December 2016.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4235 OF 2014


BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA        ....APPELLANT



                                   VERSUS



CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR &ORS.         .....RESPONDENTS



                                    WITH


                        CIVIL APPEAL No. 4236 OF 2014

                                    WITH


                        CIVIL APPEAL No. 1155 OF 2015





                                  O R D E R



Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD,J



1     On 7 October 2016, directions were issued by this Court pursuant to  a
status  report  dated  26  September  2016,  submitted  by   the   Committee
consisting of  Justice  R  M  Lodha,  Justice  Ashok  Bhan  and  Justice  RV
Raveendran.  The status report filed by the Committee set out  the  sequence
of events that had taken place after the final judgment and  order  of  this
Court dated 18 July  2016,  which  accepted  the  report  submitted  by  the
Committee on 18 December 2015 with certain modifications.   A  gist  of  the
status report has been set out in the earlier order dated  7  October  2016.
After adverting to the sequence of events, the Committee has concluded  that
BCCI has violated its directions:

“…Directions of this Hon’ble Court have  been  ignored,  actions  have  been
taken to present a fait accompli to the Committee,  the  directives  of  the
Committee have been breached, and member associations  have  not  been  duly
intimated about the directions of the Committee and the timelines  fixed  by
it.”



The Committee  has  observed  that  “BCCI  has  repeatedly  taken  steps  to
undermine the  Committee  and  this  Court”,  with  several  statements  and
actions  which  “are  grossly  out  of  order  and  would  even   constitute
contempt”.  The Committee noted that despite several e-mails, as well  as  a
direction to appear before it on 9 August 2016, the President  of  BCCI  did
not furnish even a single response to the  Committee.   The  Committee  also
observed that the  President  of  BCCI  had  even  gone  to  the  extent  of
requesting  ICC  to  issue  a  letter  that  “this  Committee   amounts   to
governmental interference” besides making several  objectionable  statements
in the press which undermined both the Court and the Committee.

2     The Committee submitted the above status report in  pursuance  of  the
directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016.  This
Court had by its judgment, while accepting the recommendations made  in  the
earlier report of the Committee, assigned to  the  Committee  a  supervisory
role for ensuring the transition from the old to the new system  recommended
by the Committee.  While this Court in its judgment expressed  a  hope  that
the process of implementing the directions contained in the  judgment  would
be completed within a period of four months  or  at  best  six  months,  the
Committee  was   requested   to   draw   appropriate   timelines   for   the
implementation of the recommendations and to  supervise  the  implementation
process.  The Committee,  while  moving  the  status  report  observed  that
though the office bearers of  BCCI had  furnished  assurances  to  it  on  9
August 2016,  25  August  2016  and  20  September  2016,  that  they  would
cooperate with the Committee in fulfilling  the  directions  of  this  Court
(subject to any modification  or  review)  these  assurances  had  not  been
fulfilled.

3     In the previous  Order  of  this  Court  dated  7  October  2016,  the
following prima facie, findings were recorded:-

“… The sequence of events that have been taken place since 18th  July,  2016
and referred to in the status report prima facie  give  an  impression  that
BCCI has far from lending its fullest cooperation to the  Committee  adopted
an obstructionist and at times a defiant attitude which  the  Committee  has
taken note of and described  as  an  impediment  undermining  not  only  the
Committee but even the dignity of this Court  with  several  statements  and
actions which according to the Committee are grossly out of  order  and  may
even constitute contempt”.



This Court has noted that in spite of a direction issued  by  the  Committee
on 21 August 2016 that the AGM of BCCI which was to be held on 21  September
2016, may transact only routine business for 2015-16 and that  any  business
or matter relating to 2016-17 may be dealt with only after the  adoption  of
the Memorandum of Association and rules in pursuance of the  recommendations
of the Committee, substantial amounts running into  crores  of  rupees  have
been disbursed in favour of state associations.  This  Court  expressed  the
view that BCCI could and indeed ought to have avoided  the  disbursement  of
such a huge amount while the Committee was  still  examining  the  need  for
formulating a disbursement policy.

4     During the course of the hearing which resulted in the  earlier  order
dated 7 October 2016, BCCI stated that one of the reasons  for  its  failure
to adopt the proposed MOA was the reluctance of the  state  associations  to
subscribe to it.  In this background, this Court observed that  if  that  be
the position, there is  no  reason  why  the  state  associations  that  are
opposed to the reforms suggested by  the  Committee  and  accepted  by  this
Court should either expect or draw any benefit from the  release  of  grants
by BCCI.  The following directions have been  issued  by  this  Court  on  7
October 2016:-

“i) No  further  amount  in  terms  of  the  Resolution  passed  in  AGM  on
09.11.2015  or  any  subsequent  resolution  by  the  BCCI  or  its  Working
Committee shall be disbursed to  any  State  Association  except  where  the
State Association concerned passes a proper resolution to  the  effect  that
it is agreeable to undertake and to support  the  reforms  as  proposed  and
accepted by this Court in letter and spirit.  Upon such a  Resolution  being
passed, a copy of the same shall be filed  before  Justice  Lodha  Committee
with an affidavit of  the  President  of  the  State  Association  concerned
unequivocally undertaking to  abide  by  the  reforms  as  proposed  by  the
Committee and accepted and modified by  this  Court.   A  similar  affidavit
with a copy of the Resolution shall be filed before this Court also.  It  is
only after such affidavits are filed, that BCCI  may  transfer  the  balance
amount of Rs.16.73 crores each payable to the State Association.

As regards the 13 State Associations to whom the payment  has  already  been
disbursed,  we  direct  that  the  State  Association  concerned  shall  not
appropriate the said amount except after they have passed a  resolution  and
filed an affidavit as mentioned above before  Justice  Lodha  Committee  and
before this Court.  In  case  the  affidavits  are  not  filed,  the  amount
disbursed to the State Associations shall be invested  by  the  Associations
in a term deposit subject to further directions of this Court.

ii)   Mr.  Ratnakar  Shivaram  Shetty,  General  Manager,  Admin  and   Game
development shall,  in  the  meanatime,  place  on  record  a  copy  of  the
authorization/resolution passed by the BCCI on the basis  of  which  he  has
filed the affidavit supporting the  response  of  the  BCCI  to  the  status
report.

iii)   Mr. Anurag Thakur, President  of  the  BCCI  shall  file  a  personal
affidavit whether he had asked  the  CEO  of  the  ICC  to  state  that  the
appointment  of  Justice  Lodha  Committee  was  tantamount  to   Government
interference in the working of the BCCI.

iv)    Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior  Counsel  to  produce  the  original
record on the basis of which the affidavit by Mr. Ratnakar  Shivaram  Shetty
on behalf of BCCI has been filed”.



5     In pursuance of these directions, Mr Anurag Thakur, President of  BCCI
has filed an  affidavit  specifically  with  reference  to  direction  (iii)
above.  Before we  consider  the  affidavit  that  has  been  filed  by  the
President of BCCI, it is necessary to advert to the response to  the  status
report of the Committee  filed  by  Mr  Ratnakar  Shivaram  Shetty,  General
Manager, Admn. & Game Development, BCCI.  In the sequence of events set  out
in his response  to  the  status  report,  Mr  Shetty  has  dealt  with  the
statement made in an interview given to the electronic  media  by  Mr  David
Richardson, CEO of ICC.  Mr Richardson stated that  the  President  of  BCCI
sought a letter from ICC that the appointment of a  nominee  of  CAG  (which
has been directed by this Court on 18 July 2016 in terms of the  Committee’s
recommendations)  would  amount  to  ‘governmental   interference’   thereby
inviting the suspension of BCCI from the membership  of  ICC.   Mr  Shetty’s
response was as follows:

      “It appears that an interview was given by  Mr  David  Richardson  the
ICC CEO falsely stating that the BCCI President had  requested  the  ICC  to
issue a letter stating that the intervention by this Hon’ble Court  amounted
to Governmental interference.  It is submitted that no such letter  or  oral
request was ever made to the said gentleman either by the BCCI President  or
any office bearer of the BCCI.  It  is  apparent  that  Mr.  Richardson  has
confused himself in relation to the issue.  This issue  is  required  to  be
considered in the light  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Shashank  Manohar  Senior
Advocate had clearly opined as the BCCI President that  appointment  of  the
CAG in the BCCI  shall  result  in  suspension  of  the  BCCI  as  it  would
constitute governmental interference.  In fact the same had  been  submitted
on affidavit before this Hon’ble Court.  However, as Chairman  of  the  ICC,
Mr. Manohar had taken a contrary stand and stated that it would  not  amount
to governmental interference.  It was in  this  context  that  a  discussion
took place between Mr. Shashank Manohar  and  Mr.  Anurag  Thakur  during  a
meeting in Dubai wherein a clarification as  sought  by  Mr.  Anurag  Thakur
during an informal discussion on what the exact status would be if  the  CAG
was inducted by the BCCI as part of its  management  and  whether  it  would
amount to governmental interference as had been advised and affirmed by  Mr.
Manohar during his stint as BCCI President.”

Paragraph 7(d) of the response contains a statement that:

      “It is being incorrectly  alleged  that  the  President  BCCI  made  a
request to the ICC to issue a letter stating that this Committee amounts  to
Governmental interference.  This suggestion is denied”.



6     In the  affidavit  which has  been filed by  the  President  of   BCCI
 on 15 October 2016, there is a denial that any such  request  was  made  by
him to the CEO of ICC.  Paragraph 3 of the affidavit  contains  the  version
of the President of what transpired at Dubai on 6/7 August 2016  during  the
course of a meeting convened by ICC:

“In this context  it  is  respectfully  submitted  that  there  was  an  ICC
governance review committee meeting scheduled to be held in Dubai on  6th  &
7th August 2016.  There were certain issues relating to financial model  for
which my inputs were required and as such I was invited by ICC for the  said
meeting.   During  the  meeting  with  regard   to   the   review   of   the
constitutional provisions of ICC, I pointed out to the Chairman of the  ICC,
Mr. Shashank Manohar that when he was the President of BCCI he had  taken  a
view that the recommendations of the Justice Lodha committee appointing  the
nominee of the  CAG  on  the  Apex  Council  would  amount  to  governmental
interference  and  might  invoke  an  action  of  suspension  from  ICC.   I
therefore requested him that he being the  ICC  Chairman  can  a  letter  be
issued clarifying the position which he had taken as  BCCI  President.   Mr.
Manohar explained to me at the meeting that when  the  stand  was  taken  by
him, the matter was pending before this  Hon’ble  Court  and  had  not  been
decided.  However, on 18.07.2016 this Hon’ble Court delivered  its  judgment
in the matter.  In the said judgment, this Hon’ble Court  has  rejected  the
submission that the appointment of the nominee of CAG on Apex council  would
amount to Governmental interference and had also held  that  the  ICC  would
appreciate the appointment as it would bring transparency  in  the  finances
of the Board.”



7     Mr Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the
BCCI has tendered during the course of hearing draft minutes  of  a  Working
Committee meeting of BCCI  held  on  22  August  2016.   The  draft  minutes
purportedly contain a record of what is stated to  have  transpired  between
Mr Shashank Manohar, the Chairperson of ICC and the  President  of  BCCI  at
the meeting on 6 and 7 August 2016.  The relevant part is extracted  below:-


“Mr. Anurag Thakur was in the Chair and called  the  meeting  to  order  and
welcomed the members.  He briefed the members about  his  meeting  with  the
ICC Chairman at Dubai during the ICC governance review committee meeting  on
6th & 7th August 2016.  Certain financial mode inputs were  required  during
the said meeting which he gave.  During  the  meeting  with  regard  to  the
review of the constitutional provisions  of  ICC  it  was  informed  by  Mr.
Thakur that he asked Chairman ICC Mr. Shashank Manohar that when he was  the
President of BCCI he had taken a view that the  recommendations  of  Justice
Lodha committee appointing the nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council  would
amount  to  governmental  interference  and  might  invoke  an   action   of
suspension from ICC.  It was therefore requested from him that he being  the
ICC Chairman could a letter be issued clarifying the position which  he  had
taken as BCCI President.  Mr. Manohar thereafter  explained  that  when  the
stand was taken by him the matter was pending before the Supreme  Court  and
was not decided.  However on 18th of July 2016 the  Hon.  Supreme  Court  of
India delivered its judgment and the Court has rejected the submission  that
the appointment of the nominee  of  CAG  on  Apex  council  will  amount  to
Governmental interference and had also held that the  ICC  would  appreciate
the appointment as it would  bring  transparency  in  the  finances  of  the
Board.  The discussion stopped in view of his explanation  on  this  issue”.




8     Prima facie, it appears from the response that was filed  by  BCCI  to
the status report, that a clarification was sought by Mr Anurag Thakur  from
Mr Shashank Manohar on what the exact status would be if a  nominee  of  CAG
was inducted by BCCI as part of its management and whether it  would  amount
to governmental interference.   The statement made by BCCI in  its  response
to the status report contains a denial that its President made a request  to
ICC to issue a letter stating that the Committee  amounted  to  governmental
interference.  However, in the affidavit which has since been filed  by  the
President of BCCI in pursuance of the Court’s directions of 7 October  2016,
it has been accepted that he had made a request to the Chairman of  ICC  for
issuing a letter “clarifying  the  position  which  he  had  taken  as  BCCI
President” (to the effect that the  recommendations  of  the  Committee  for
appointing a nominee of CAG would amount to  governmental  interference  and
might invoke an action for suspension from ICC).  Significantly,  Mr  Shetty
did not in the response filed earlier by BCCI to the status report  disclose
that there was a request for a letter by  its  President  to  the  Chairman,
ICC.

9     The draft minutes  of  the  Working  Committee  purportedly  dated  22
August 2016, a copy of which has been placed on the record,  are  in  tandem
with the statement made by Mr Thakur on affidavit.  Prima facie, it  appears
that the draft minutes were not before Mr Shetty when he  made  a  statement
on behalf of BCCI in his  response  to  the  status  report.  If  the  draft
minutes were before him, it would be natural to assume that  the  disclosure
which has now emerged in pursuance of  the  order  of  this  Court  dated  7
October 2016 would have been contained  in  the  response  submitted  by  Mr
Shetty to the status report.  Mr Shetty has stated that the  response  filed
by BCCI to the status report was  based  on  information  derived  from  the
records.  If that  be  so,  the  purported  draft  minutes  of  the  Working
Committee could not have missed his attention or knowledge.

10    Be that as it may,  it  is  a  matter  of  serious  concern  that  the
President of BCCI, even after the declaration  of  the  final  judgment  and
order of this Court dated 18 July 2016, requested  the  Chairperson  of  ICC
for a letter “clarifying” (as he states) the position which he had taken  as
BCCI President to the effect that the  induction  of  a  CAG  nominee  would
amount to governmental interference and may result in BCCI  being  suspended
from ICC.  There was no occasion for the President of BCCI  to  do  so  once
the recommendation of the Committee for the induction of a CAG  nominee  was
accepted in the final judgment of this  Court.   In  the  judgment  of  this
Court dated 18 May 2016, this Court observed as follows:-

“77. There is, in our view, no basis  for  the  argument  that  any  measure
taken by the BCCI on its own or under the direction  of  a  competent  court
specially when aimed at streamlining  its  working  and  ensuring  financial
discipline, transparency and  accountability  expected  of  an  organization
discharging public functions such  as  BCCI  may  be  seen  as  governmental
interference calling for suspension/derecognition  of  the  BCCI.  Far  from
finding fault with presence of a nominee of the Accountant  General  of  the
State and C&AG, the ICC would in our opinion appreciate any  such  step  for
the same would prevent misgivings about the working of the  BCCI  especially
in  relation  to  management  of  its  funds  and  bring  transparency   and
objectivity necessary to inspire public confidence in the fairness  and  the
effective management of the affairs of the BCCI and the State  Associations.
The nominees recommended by the Committee would act  as  conscience  keepers
of the State Association and BCCI in financial matters and  matters  related
or incidental thereto which will in no way adversely impact the  performance
or working of the BCCI for the promotion and  development  of  the  game  of
cricket.  The  criticism  levelled  against  the  recommendations   of   the
Committee is, therefore, unfounded and accordingly rejected”.


11    This finding which is contained in the final  judgment  and  order  of
this Court binds BCCI.   Prima  facie,  an  effort  has  been  made  by  the
President of BCCI to create a record in order to question the legitimacy  of
the recommendation of the Committee for the appointment  of  a  CAG  nominee
after the recommendation was accepted by this Court on  18  July  2016.   We
presently defer further  consideration  of  the  action  to  be  taken  with
reference to his conduct.   Mr Shetty in his response to the  status  report
claims that the CEO of ICC had “falsely” stated in his  interview  that  the
President of BCCI had requested ICC to  issue  a  letter  stating  that  the
intervention of this  Court  amounted  to  governmental  interference.   The
version of  Mr Shetty is at variance to what is alleged to have been  stated
by the CEO of ICC.  It may also become necessary for this  Court  to  assess
the veracity of the version of Mr Shetty and  that  of  Mr  Richardson.   Mr
Shashank Manohar, the then President of BCCI is presently  the  Chairman  of
ICC.  A copy of this order shall be forwarded to him  by  the  Secretary  to
the Committee in order to enable him to consider filing a  response  setting
out his version, to set the record  straight  and  assist  this  Court.   Mr
Manohar is at liberty to obtain a report from Mr  Richardson  before  filing
his response.

12    During the course of hearing, a grievance has been made on  behalf  of
BCCI that though in the judgment of this Court dated 18 July  2016,  it  had
been hoped that the process of implementing the  reforms  suggested  by  the
Committee “should be completed within a period of four  months  or  at  best
six  months  from  today”,  the  Committee  has  hastened  the  process   by
indicating timelines for completion even within the  said  period.  We  find
that the criticism of the Committee is  not  justified  for  more  than  one
reason. Though this Court expressed the hope that the process of  transition
and implementation be completed within four months or  at  best  within  six
months, this Court left it  open  to  the  Committee  to  draw  “appropriate
timelines for implementation of the recommendations” and  to  supervise  the
implementation thereof.  The Committee which was entrusted with the task  of
supervising the implementation process was permitted to  lay  down  suitable
timelines.  The process of implementation requires a continuous  process  of
monitoring and supervision and it would be only  reasonable  to  assume,  as
did  the  Committee,  that  the  process  could  not  be  completed  in  one
instalment. Hence, the Committee laid down timelines for implementation.

13    Hence, the broad framework of time prescribed by this Court  does  not
preclude the Committee from specifying  timelines.   On  the  contrary,  the
Committee was specifically allowed to do so to implement the  judgment.  The
status report contains a record of proceedings before the Committee dated  9
August 2016 which indicates that when  the  first  set  of   timelines   was
handed  over to  BCCI’s Secretary  on 9 August 2016, he  stated  before  the
Committee that a report of compliance would be furnished by 25 August  2016.
 Despite this, in  the  report  dated  25  August  2016,  submitted  by  the
Secretary, BCCI to the  Committee  there  appears  the  following  statement
furnished by BCCI by  way  of  a  clarification  at  the  Working  Committee
meeting held on 22 August 2016:

“2  The Members queried as regards to the  status  of  the  review  petition
filed by the BCCI.  It was clarified to  the  members  that  if  the  review
petition as well as curative petition was dismissed, the recommendations  of
the Lodha Committee, save  those  as  amended  by  the  court  would  become
binding”.



14    The statement made on behalf of BCCI to the Working Committee that  it
was only if the Review Petition, as well as Curative  Petition  were  to  be
dismissed that the recommendations of the  Committee  would  be  binding  is
patently misconceived.  The recommendations of the Committee  were  endorsed
in a final judgment and order of this Court dated 18 July 2016,  subject  to
certain modifications.  The judgment of this Court has to be implemented  as
it stands.   A party to a litigation cannot be heard to say  that  it  would
treat a judgment of this Court as  not  having  binding  effect  unless  the
Review or Curative Petitions that it has filed are dismissed.

15    For the reasons which have weighed with us in  the  earlier  order  of
this Court dated 7 October 2016 and for those which we have  adduced  above,
we are inclined to take a serious  view  of  the  conduct  of  BCCI  in  the
present case.  Despite the prima facie findings which  were  arrived  at  in
the previous order, the further hearing was deferred.   There  has  been  no
change in the position of BCCI.  The intransigence continues.  If  BCCI  had
any  difficulties  about  adhering  to  the  timelines  laid  down  by   the
Committee, the appropriate course would have been  to  move  the  Committee.
Even the grievance which was urged during  this  proceeding  by  BCCI,  that
some  of  the  directions  of  the  Committee  have  travelled  beyond   the
parameters set by this Court can and ought to be urged before the  Committee
in the first instance.

16    During the course of the hearing, Shri Kapil  Sibal,   learned  senior
counsel appearing on behalf of  BCCI  has  agreed  to  a  course  of  action
whereby in the first instance, BCCI would establish its  bona  fides  before
the  Committee  by  demonstrating   the  compliance  made  by  it  of  those
recommendations which are stated to have been fulfilled.  The  Committee  as
the body appointed by this Court to monitor and supervise implementation  of
the judgment will verify whether there has been  full  compliance  with  the
directions which are stated by BCCI to have been fulfilled.

17    The President and Secretary of BCCI  shall  (within  two  weeks)  file
before the  Committee  on  affidavit  their  statements  of  the  compliance
effected  by  BCCI  thus  far  of  those  recommendations  which  have  been
fulfilled.  The statement shall contain an  elaboration  of  the  manner  in
which compliance has been made and the steps proposed to be taken to  fulfil
the remaining directions of this Court.  The  Committee  is  at  liberty  to
verify the compliance statements filed on behalf of BCCI  by  its  President
and Secretary. Both the President and the Secretary shall appear before  the
Committee in person, and explain the steps  taken  for  compliance  and  the
course of action to be adopted hereafter.

18    Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of BCCI has stated that  in
respect of some of the recommendations, where state  associations  have  not
agreed to implement the recommendations of the  Committee,  as  accepted  by
this Court, BCCI will  make  a  genuine  endeavour  to  persuade  the  state
associations to effectuate  compliance.   Though  BCCI  is  in  default  and
breach of the directions of this Court, in order to enable  it  to  have  an
additional opportunity to establish its bona fides and to secure  compliance
with the judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016, we grant  time  until  3
December 2016 for the purpose.  Besides complying  with  the  direction  set
out above of filing statements and  appearing  before  the  Committee,  BCCI
shall report compliance before this Court on 5 December 2016.

19    For the reasons which have been contained in the present order of  the
Court,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  issuance  of  certain  additional
directions has become inevitable, over and above those  that  are  contained
in the previous order dated 7 October 2016. We have presently  come  to  the
conclusion that, prima facie,  there  is  substance  in  the  status  report
submitted by the Committee.  Implementation of the final  judgment  of  this
Court dated 18 July 2016 has prima facie been impeded by  the  intransigence
of BCCI  and  its  office  bearers.   However,  having  due  regard  to  the
submission made on behalf of BCCI that it would make  every  genuine  effort
to persuade the state associations to secure compliance  with  the  judgment
of this Court, and having regard to the larger  interests  of  the  game  of
cricket, we are desisting from issuing a direction at this  stage  in  terms
of the request made by the Committee for appointment  of  administrators  so
as to enable BCCI to demonstrate its good faith  and  the  steps  taken  for
compliance both before the Committee in the first instance and  before  this
Court by the next date of hearing.  However, certain  additional  directions
are  warranted  in  the  interest  of  maintaining   transparency   in   the
functioning of BCCI, having regard to the sequence of events after  18  July
2016.

20    We accordingly issue the following additional directions:-

(i)   BCCI shall forthwith cease and desist from making any disbursement  of
funds for any purpose whatsoever to any state association until  and  unless
the  state  association  concerned  adopts  a  resolution   undertaking   to
implement the recommendations of the Committee as accepted by this Court  in
its judgment dated 18 July 2016.  After such  a  resolution  is  passed  and
before any disbursement of  funds  takes  place  to  the  state  association
concerned, a copy of the resolution shall be filed before the Committee  and
before this Court, together with an affidavit of the President of the  state
association undertaking to abide by the reforms contained in the  report  of
the Committee, as modified by this Court.  Any transfer of funds shall  take
place to the state associations which have accepted these terms  only  after
compliance as above is effected.  This  direction  is  in  addition  to  the
previous direction of 7 October 2016 in regard to the  disbursement  to  and
appropriation by the state associations;

(ii) (a) The Committee appointed by this Court is requested  to  appoint  an
independent  auditor  to  scrutinise  and  audit  the  income  received  and
expenditure incurred by  BCCI;  (b)  The  auditor  shall  also  oversee  the
tendering process that will hereinafter be undertaken by BCCI,  as  well  as
the award  of  contracts  above  a  threshold  value  to  be  fixed  by  the
Committee; (c) The award of contracts by BCCI above the threshold  fixed  by
the Committee shall be subject to the prior approval of the  Committee;  (d)
The Committee shall be at liberty to obtain the advice of  the  auditors  on
the fairness of the tendering process which has been adopted by BCCI and  in
regard to all relevant facts and  circumstances;  (e)   The  Committee  will
determine whether a proposed contract above the threshold  value  should  or
should not be approved;  and  (f)  The  Committee  will  be  at  liberty  to
formulate the terms of engagement  and  reference  to  the  auditors  having
regard to the above directions.   BCCI shall defray the costs,  charges  and
expenses of the auditors.

(iii) The President and Secretary of BCCI shall within two weeks from  today
file a statement on affidavit indicating compliance made by  BCCI  of  those
of the recommendations of the Committee which have been complied  with,  the
manner of compliance and the steps adopted for securing compliance with  the
remaining recommendations.   They  shall  appear  before  the  Committee  to
explain the manner of compliance. The President and  Secretary,  BCCI  shall
also keep the Committee apprised about  the  steps  taken  pursuant  to  the
statement recorded in paragraph 18 above.

(iv)  An affidavit of compliance shall be filed  before  this  Court  on  or
before 3 December 2016 by the President and Secretary to BCCI  in  terms  of
paragraphs 17 and 18 above; and

(v)  The Secretary to the Committee appointed by this Court shall forward  a
copy of this order to Mr Shashank Manohar, Chairman ICC  to  facilitate  the
observations contained in paragraph 11 of this order.

BCCI shall cooperate with the Committee and with the auditors  by  granting,
in particular, full access to records, accounts  and  other  information  as
required to facilitate implementation of these directions.

21    The hearing of the proceedings shall stand over to  5  December  2016.






                             ............................................CJI
                                                     [T.S. THAKUR]


                           ................................................J
                                                        [A.M. KHANWILKAR]


                           ................................................J
                                                                 [Dr D Y
                                CHANDRACHUD]


New Delhi
October 21, 2016

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.