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

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

All the office bearers of BCCI and of its affiliated State Associations who fail to meet the norms recommended by the Committee and accepted by this Court, shall forthwith demit and cease to hold office namely: “A person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer if he or she : Is not a citizen of India; Has attained the age of 70 years; Is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind; Is a Minister or government servant; Holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from cricket; Has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years; Has been charged by a Court of Law for having committed any criminal offence.” Shri Anurag Thakur, President of BCCI and Shri Ajay Shirke, Secretary, BCCI shall forthwith cease and desist from being associated with the working of BCCI; A notice to show cause shall issue to Mr Anurag Thakur to explain why he should not be proceeded against under the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; A notice to show cause shall issue to Mr Anurag Thakur to explain why he should not be proceeded with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; A Committee of administrators shall supervise the administration of BCCI through its Chief Executive Officer; This Court shall by a separate order nominate the persons who shall form part of the Committee of administrators. In order to enable the Court to have the benefit of objective assistance in making the nominations, we request Mr Fali S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel and Mr Gopal Subramaniam, the learned Amicus Curiae to assist the Court by suggesting names of persons with integrity and experience in managing a similar enterprise. We request the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to also place their suggestions before the Court so as to facilitate a considered decision; In addition to the function assigned in (v) above, the Committee of administrators shall also ensure that the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016 (which accepted the report of the Committee with modifications) are fulfilled and to adopt all necessary and consequential steps for that purpose; In view of the directions contained in (ii) above, the senior most Vice- President of BCCI shall perform the duties of the President, BCCI and the Joint Secretary shall perform the duties of Secretary. Those of the office bearers of BCCI who are not disqualified in terms of clause (i) above (other than the President and Secretary) may continue subject to their filing an unconditional undertaking before this Court within four weeks of the date of this order to abide by and implement the directions contained in the judgment dated 18 July 2016. Upon the Committee of administrators as nominated by this Court assuming charge, the existing office bearers shall function subject to the supervision and control of the Committee of administrators. The Committee of administrators would have the power to issue all appropriate directions to facilitate due supervision and control; and The remuneration payable to the members of the Committee of Administrators shall be fixed in consultation with the Committee consisting of Mr Justice R M Lodha, Mr Justice Ashok Bhan and Mr Justice R V Raveendran.The role of the Justice R M Lodha Committee shall hereafter be confined to overall policy and direction on such matters as may be referred by this Court. We would request the leaned Senior Counsel and the learned Amicus Curiae to endeavour to submit their suggestions to this Court within two weeks. The proceedings shall be listed before this Court on 19 January 2017 for pronouncement of directions in regard to the names of the administrators. 26 There shall accordingly be an order in these terms.

                                                                  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



This  proceeding  is  a  sequel  to  the  order  and  directions  issued  on
    21 October 2016. In the previous order of this Court, the status  report
submitted by the three member Committee (consisting of Justice  R  M  Lodha,
Justice  Ashok  Bhan  and  Justice  R  V  Raveendran)  was  taken   up   for
consideration.

2     The Committee was tasked with overseeing  the  implementation  of  the
judgment and order of this Court dated 18 July 2016. The  judgment  of  this
Court has attained finality. Review and Curative petitions  have  also  been
dismissed. By its judgment, this  Court  has  accepted  the  recommendations
made by the Committee in a report  dated  18  December  2015  providing  for
reforms in  the  structure,  organization  and  working  of  BCCI.  Such  an
exercise is necessary in order to make the functioning of BCCI  transparent,
objective and accountable to the trust with which  it  is  impressed,  as  a
body which presides over the affairs  of  a  sport  which  has  millions  of
followers. This Court had by  its  judgment  expressed  the  hope  that  the
process of implementing its directions would be completed  within  a  period
of four months or, at best, six months. The status report submitted  by  the
Committee recorded that the directions of this Court were  ignored,  actions
were taken by BCCI to present a fait  accompli  to  the  Committee  and  the
directives issued by the Committee were  breached.  The  Committee  observed
that BCCI has repeatedly taken steps to undermine  its  authority  and  this
Court with several statements and actions which “are grossly  out  of  order
and would even constitute contempt”.

3     On 7 October 2016, while taking note of the  status  report  submitted
by the Committee, this Court recorded the following prima facie findings :

“… The sequence of events.. 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”.



4     On 7 October 2016, this Court took note of the fact that  despite  the
directions which the Committee issued on 21 August  2016  that  the  AGM  of
BCCI may transact only routine business for 2015-2016 and that any  business
or matter for 2016-2017 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  were
disbursed in favour of State Associations. BCCI had informed the court  that
one of the reasons for its  failure  to  adopt  the  proposed  MoA  was  the
reluctance  of  its  State  Associations  to  subscribe  to  it.   In   this
background, the court was constrained to issue directions inter alia to  the
effect that no further amounts shall be disbursed to the State  Associations
except to those associations which undertake the reforms  suggested  by  the
Committee and accepted by the court.

5     Another issue which was of concern was the conduct  of  the  President
of BCCI (Mr Anurag Thakur) who, the Committee recorded as having  asked  the
CEO of ICC to state that the Committee appointed by this Court  amounted  to
‘governmental interference’. It may be noted here that in  an  interview  to
the electronic media, the CEO of ICC  stated  that  the  President  of  BCCI
sought a letter from ICC that the  appointment  of  a  nominee  of  CAG  (as
directed by this Court on 18 July 2016 in terms of  the  recommendations  of
the Committee) would amount  to  ‘governmental  interference’  inviting  the
suspension of BCCI from the membership of ICC. By its order dated 7  October
2016, the President of BCCI  was  directed  to  file  a  personal  affidavit
clarifying the position.

6     There were two versions before  this  Court  in  regard  to  what  had
transpired between the President of BCCI and Mr Shashank Manohar,  President
of ICC at a meeting that was held at Dubai on 6 and 7 August 2016 during  an
ICC Governance Review  Committee  meeting.  Mr.  Ratnakar  Shivaram  Shetty,
General Manager of Admin and Game Development,  BCCI  had  in  his  response
stated 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.” (emphasis supplied)



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”. (emphasis supplied)



On the other hand, the President of BCCI in his response (filed pursuant  to
the directions of this Court) stated as follows :

“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.” (emphasis supplied)



7     In the response filed by Mr Shetty on  behalf  of  BCCI  there  was  a
specific denial that its President had  requested  ICC  to  issue  a  letter
stating that the Committee amounted to  governmental  interference.  On  the
other hand, in the affidavit which the President of BCCI filed in  pursuance
of the directions of this Court dated 7  October  2016  he  accepted  having
made a request to the Chairman of ICC for issuing a letter  “clarifying  the
position which he had taken as BCCI President” (that the  recommendation  of
the Committee for appointment of a CAG nominee would amount to  governmental
interference and may lead to a suspension of BCCI from ICC  membership).  Mr
Shetty had not disclosed that there was any such request for a  letter  made
by the President of BCCI whereas according to the latter he had made such  a
request. Mr Shetty in fact denied that any request for a letter was made  to
the ICC President by Mr Anurag Thakur.

8     This Court by its order dated 21 October 2016 observed as follows :

“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 leveled 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.”



In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 21  October  2016,  a
response received by Mr Shashank Manohar, President of ICC has  been  placed
before this Court by the Amicus Curiae.

9     After reviewing whether due and adequate steps were taken by  BCCI  to
implement the final judgment of this Court, this Court in  its  order  dated
            21 October 2016 recorded the following findings :

“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.” (emphasis supplied)



10    A statement was made on behalf of the BCCI by learned  Senior  Counsel
that  BCCI  would  establish  its  bonafides   before   the   Committee   by
establishing the compliance made of those of its recommendations  which  are
stated to have been fulfilled. Accordingly, in order to  furnish  BCCI  with
an opportunity to demonstrate its compliance with  the  directions  of  this
Court,  we  desisted  from  issuing  a  direction  at  that  stage  for  the
appointment of administrators (as sought by the Committee) in the hope  that
BCCI would comply  with  the  judgment  and  order  of  this  Court  in  the
meantime. While doing so, this Court observed that :

“19….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.”  (emphasis
supplied)



11    In pursuance of the previous directions issued by this  Court,  on  21
October 2016, the Committee filed another status report on 7  November  2016
on which orders were passed by this Court on 8 November 2016. The  Committee
has filed another status report on 14 November 2016  seeking  the  following
directions :

That  all  office  bearers  of  BCCI  and  State  Associations   who   stand
disqualified by virtue of the norms contained in its report dated 4  October
2016 and accepted by this Court must cease to hold office forthwith;



All administrative and management matters be carried out by the CEO of  BCCI
without  advertence to the office bearers; and

Appointment of anamed observer to supervise the administration  of  BCCI  by
the CEO.

The Committee has suggested that its own role may  be  confined  to  overall
policy and direction and not the actual administration of BCCI.

12    The President of BCCI has filed an affidavit in these  proceedings  on
3 December 2016. The affidavit states that neither  the  President  nor  the
Secretary of BCCI command voting rights  in  the  meetings  of  the  Working
Committee. The affidavit states  in  the  following  terms  that  the  State
Associations have  declined  to  accept  the  recommendations  made  by  the
Committee and accepted by this     Court :

“Accordingly the Hon Secretary convened the said meeting referred  to  above
of the General Body of the BCCI for the 30.9.2016….

The meeting resumed the next day i.e. on 1.10.2016….

I further state that I as Hon. President do not have a vote when  I  sit  in
the general body meeting neither does the Hon. Secretary….

I further state that I as a Hon.  President  am  in  no  position  to  force
members to adopt the full memorandum as recommended, even though armed  with
an order of this Hon’ble Court, as the members are of the  opinion  that  as
per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975  under
which the BCCI is registered, they can  amend  their  memorandum  only  when
three fourths of the members  present  and  entitled  to  vote,  accept  the
changes to the memorandum.

I further state that another informal meeting of the members was once  again
held in New Delhi on 15.10.2016, wherein I along  with  the  Hon.  Secretary
again conveyed to all the members present that should  they  not  adopt  the
memorandum as proposed by the Lodha Committee, all the payments due  to  the
member state associations would be stopped….

The members  stuck  to  their  stand  that  they  would  abide  by  the  new
memorandum only as approved by them with the changes as approved by them  in
the adjourned meeting of the 30.9.2016, irrespective of  the  fact  that  no
further payments would be made to them. The members were of the view that  a
few of the Lodha Committee recommendations  were  not  in  the  interest  of
Indian Cricket and would be a huge setback to the game in India and  destroy
it completely…..

As  Hon.  President,  I  am  rendered  totally  incapable  and  without  any
authority to force the members, who are 30 in number and have voting  rights
under the statute, to adopt the entire memorandum as proposed  for  adoption
by the Hon. Lodha Committee.”              (emphasis supplied)



13    The position as it has emerged before the court is  that  despite  the
fact that there is a judgment and final order dated 18 July  2016  accepting
the report submitted by the Committee, the implementation of the  directions
issued by this Court has been obstructed and impeded. By the order  of  this
Court of 7 October 2016 and the subsequent directions that  were  issued  on
21 October 2016, sufficient time  was  granted  to  BCCI  to  abide  by  the
judgment and order of this Court.

14    Initially, as the Committee informed  this  Court,  BCCI  appeared  to
have taken the position that it was only if its Review Petition as  well  as
Curative Petition were dismissed, that the recommendations of the  Committee
would be accepted. This statement of  BCCI  at  a  meeting  of  its  Working
Committee held on 21 October 2016 was  manifestly  misconceived.  Once  this
Court  had   affirmed   the   recommendations   of   the   Committee   (with
modifications) in a final  judgment  and  order  dated  18  July  2016,  the
judgment had to be implemented as it stands. By  the  Order  of  this  Court
dated 21  October  2016,  this  Court  made  it  clear,  if  indeed  such  a
clarification was at all warranted, that :

“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    As a matter of record, both the Review as well as  Curative  petitions
have also been dismissed. Yet, the intransigence of BCCI has continued.  The
course of events indicates that though sufficient  opportunities  have  been
granted to BCCI to comply with the judgment and order of this Court, it  has
failed to do so. The President and Secretary  and  office  bearers  of  BCCI
have obstructed the implementation of the final directions of this Court  on
the basis of a specious plea that its State Associations are not willing  to
abide  by  the  directions.   This   Court   having   furnished   sufficient
opportunities to BCCI to comply, it is constrained now to take  recourse  to
coercive steps  to  ensure  that  the  directions  contained  in  its  final
judgment and order are not left to be a writ in sand.

16    The Committee consists of a former Chief  Justice  of  India  and  two
former Judges of the Supreme Court. They  have  together  been  tasked  with
overseeing implementation of the judgment of this Court. Yet, the  Committee
has repeatedly been confronted with a barrage  of  unfortunate  comments  by
BCCI – in Press conferences and in correspondence with  an  intent  that  it
should be led to a situation where it throws up  its  arms  in  despair  and
frustration.

17    Among the recommendations of the Committee that have been accepted  by
this Court are the following disqualifications for being  an  office  bearer
of BCCI and of the State Associations :

“A person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer if he or she :

Is not a citizen of India;

Has attained the age of 70 years;

Is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind;

Is a Minister or Government Servant;

Holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association  or  federation
apart from cricket;

Has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years;

Has been charged by a  Court  of  Law  for  having  committed  any  criminal
offence.”



18    The Committee has in its status report dated 14  November  2016  drawn
the attention of the court to the fact that several office bearers  both  of
BCCI and the State Associations continue to hold posts although  they  stand
disqualified in terms of the above norms which have been  accepted  by  this
Court. Persons who have a vested interest in continuing in  their  positions
inspite of the norms noted above have ensured that the writ of the court  is
obstructed and impeded. We need to emphasise that the turf  of  the  cricket
field is not a personal turf or fiefdom. We  must  hence  order  and  direct
that  no  person  shall  hereafter  continue  to  be  or  be  entitled   for
appointment as office bearer of BCCI or a State  Association  in  breach  of
the above norms. All existing office  bearers  of  BCCI  and  of  the  State
Associations who do not fulfill the above norms shall with effect  from  the
date of this Order stand disqualified.

19    That leads the court to the  issue  of  the  conduct  of  Shri  Anurag
Thakur, President of BCCI. By the final judgment and  order  of  this  Court
dated 18 July 2016, the plea that the appointment of a nominee of CAG  would
amount  to  governmental  interference  with  the  affairs   of   BCCI   was
specifically negatived. By its judgment, this Court had 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 leveled against the recommendations of the  Committee
is, therefore, unfounded and accordingly rejected.”



20    Once this position had been laid down  by  the  court,  there  was  no
occasion for the President of BCCI at the ICC  Governance  Review  Committee
Meeting held at Dubai on 6 and 7 August 2016 to solicit a  letter  from  the
Chairperson of ICC. Such a solicitation was but  an  effort  to  thwart  the
implementation of the orders of the court. An attempt was made to  build  up
a record to indicate that implementing the orders of the  Supreme  Court  of
India would run the risk of endangering the status of BCCI as  a  member  of
ICC. In  pursuance  of  the  Order  of  this  Court,  Mr.  Shashank  Manohar
(President – ICC) has in an email dated       2 November 2016  addressed  to
the Committee made the following disclosure :

“I would like to state that there was a meting of the Working Group  of  the
ICC held at Dubai on the 6th August, 2016 to consider  the  ICCs  Governance
and Financial Structure. At the meeting, apart from  myself  and  Mr  Anurag
Thakur, Mr Giles Clarke,    Mr David Peever and Mr  Imran  Khwaja,  who  are
all Directors of ICC were present. The ICC  CEO,       Mr  David  Richardson
and ICC COO Mr. Lain Higgins were also present..

During the meeting Mr  Thakur  pointed  out  to  me  that  when  I  was  the
President of BCCI a submission was advanced before the Supreme Court  at  my
behest that the appointment of a nominee of the  CAG  on  the  Apex  Council
might amount to Governmental interference and  would  invoke  an  action  of
suspension from the ICC. He therefore requested me  to  issue  a  letter  to
that effect in my capacity as ICC Chairman..

I declined to issue such a  letter  and  explained  to  him  that  the  said
submission was advanced before the Hon Supreme  Court  when  the  court  was
hearing the matter. However, on 18-7-2016 the Hon SC delivered its  judgment
in the matter and rejected the submission that the appointment of a  nominee
of the CAG would amount to governmental interference.  The  Hon  SC  further
held that the appointment of the CAG nominee  on  the  Apex  Council  either
made by the BCCI on its own or under the orders of a competent  court  aimed
at  bringing  financial  discipline  and  transparency  cannot  be  seen  as
governmental interference calling for suspension of the BCCI by the ICC..

The Hon SC further held that the ICC would  appreciate  the  appointment  of
such a nominee as the same would bring transparency in the finances  of  the
Board..

I therefore explained to Mr Thakur that the issue  having  been  decided  by
the Hon Supreme Court of India, which is the highest court  of  the  country
and whose judgment binds everybody, I cannot  give  him  any  such  letter.”
(emphasis supplied)



21    The response by Mr Shashank Manohar indicates that  the  President  of
BCCI requested him on 6 August 2016 to issue a letter  in  his  capacity  as
ICC Chairman in terms of the position that he had adopted as  the  President
of BCCI

(“that the appointment  of  a  CAG  nominee  would  amount  to  governmental
interference and would invoke  an  action  of  suspension  from  ICC”).  The
conduct of the President of BCCI in seeking a letter from the  President  of
ICC in August 2016, after the final judgment and Order  of  this  Court,  is
nothing but an attempt on the part of the head of BCCI to  evade  complying,
with the Order of this Court. That he sought a letter  is  clear  even  from
the affidavit of Mr Thakur dated 15 October 2016 (though he states  that  he
had requested the ICC Chairman to clarify the position which  he  had  taken
as BCCI President). Even going by that version, we are constrained  to  note
that there was absolutely no occasion for the President of BCCI  to  solicit
any such clarification from the Chairperson of  ICC  in  the  teeth  of  the
judgment that was delivered  by  this  Court.  Moreover,  we  find  adequate
reasons to doubt the veracity of the explanation which has been tendered  by
Mr Thakur about the sequence of  events.  It  must  be  noted  that  in  the
response which was filed by  Mr  Ratnakar  Shivaram  Shetty  to  the  status
report of the Committee there was a reference to  a  discussion  which  took
place between Mr Manohar and Mr Thakur  in  Dubai  and  to  a  clarification
sought by the latter on what “the exact status would be” if  a  CAG  nominee
was inducted by BCCI.       Mr Shetty specifically  denied  that  Mr  Thakur
had requested the ICC Chairperson to issue a letter.  Mr  Shetty’s  response
was based on records. This reference to some “clarification”  was  evidently
not on the basis of the minutes of the purported  meeting  of  BCCI  Working
Committee held on 22 August 2016 which were  placed  on  record  by  learned
Senior Counsel for BCCI during the course of the hearing prior to the  Order
of this Court dated 21  October  2016.  If  those  minutes  were  before  Mr
Shetty, he would have made  a  disclosure  in  their  terms.  The  purported
minutes read as follows :

“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”.
(emphasis supplied)



22    Prima facie it would appear that these minutes had not seen the  light
of the day when the response by Mr  Shetty  to  the  status  report  of  the
Committee was filed, and have been fabricated subsequently to lend  credence
to the version of Mr Thakur. The statement that Mr Manohar was requested  to
clarify the position which he had taken as BCCI President  is  falsified  by
Mr Manohar’s disclosure that he was asked to give a letter in  his  capacity
as ICC Chairman.The version of Mr Thakur that he had  requested  Mr  Manohar
that “he being ICC Chairman can a letter be issued clarifying the  position”
which he had taken as BCCI President is belied by the disclosure  which  has
been made by Mr Shashank Manohar.          Mr Manohar’ s  response  dated  2
November 2016 clearly indicates that during the course  of  the  meeting  at
Dubai on 6 August 2016, Mr Thakur requested him to issue  a  letter  in  his
capacity as ICC Chairperson that the appointment of  a  nominee  of  CAG  in
BCCI might  amount  to  governmental  interference,  leading  to  action  of
suspension  from  ICC.  Prima  facie,  it  emerges  from  the  record   that
         Mr Thakur did seek such  a  letter  from  the  ICC  Chairperson  as
stated by                  Mr Manohar. The disclosure which  Mr  Thakur  has
made in his affidavit dated 15 October 2016 is  prima  facie  false  to  his
knowledge. Prima facie, we also find that the minutes of the meeting of  the
Working Committee of BCCI which were produced before this  Court  have  been
made up to lend support to the version of Mr Thakur.

23    We accordingly have arrived at the conclusion that Mr  Thakur  has  by
his actions and conduct rendered himself unfit for continuance as  President
of BCCI, for the following reasons :

Firstly, he has obstructed and impeded the implementation of the  directions
contained in the judgment and order of this Court dated 18  July  2016.  His
own version is that he has been “rendered totally incapable and without  any
authority” to compel the members to comply with the orders  of  this  Court.
This is indicative of his having washed his hands off a duty and  obligation
to ensure compliance.

Secondly, we are prima facie of the view that Mr  Thakur  is  liable  to  be
proceeded with for contempt of court for having obstructed and  impeded  the
orders of this Court.

Thirdly, prima facie we are of the view that Mr Thakur has  made  statements
on affidavit before this Court which are false to his  knowledge.  A  notice
to show cause should be issued to Mr Thakur why he should not  be  proceeded
with under Section 195 read  with  Section  340  of  the  Code  of  Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for having made false statements before this Court.

24     In  determining  the  modalities  to  be  followed,  we  have   drawn
sustenance from an order dated 28 March  2014  passed  by  a  Bench  of  two
learned Judges of this Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr Justice  A  K  Patnaik
and Hon’ble Mr Justice F M I Kalifulla. In view of the  circumstances  which
had then arisen resulting in the President of BCCI being unable  to  perform
his duties, this Court appointed a distinguished  cricket  sportsperson,  as
an interim measure, to exercise the powers of the President in  relation  to
IPL 2014. With regard to all other matters, the senior  most  Vice-President
of BCCI was under the  orders  of  the  Court  permitted  to  discharge  the
functions of the President, BCCI.

25    For the above reasons, we order and direct as follows :

All the office bearers of BCCI and  of  its  affiliated  State  Associations
who fail to meet the norms recommended by  the  Committee  and  accepted  by
this Court, shall forthwith demit and cease to hold office namely:

“A person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer if he or she :

Is not a citizen of India;



Has attained the age of 70 years;



Is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind;



Is a Minister or government servant;



Holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association  or  federation
apart from cricket;



Has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years;



Has been charged by a  Court  of  Law  for  having  committed  any  criminal
offence.”



Shri Anurag Thakur, President of BCCI and Shri Ajay Shirke, Secretary,  BCCI
shall forthwith cease and desist from being associated with the  working  of
BCCI;

A notice to show cause shall issue to Mr Anurag Thakur  to  explain  why  he
should not be proceeded against  under the provisions of  Section  195  read
with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;



A notice to show cause shall issue to Mr Anurag Thakur  to  explain  why  he
should not be proceeded with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;



A Committee of administrators shall supervise  the  administration  of  BCCI
through its Chief Executive Officer;



This Court shall by a separate order nominate the  persons  who  shall  form
part of the Committee of administrators. In order to  enable  the  Court  to
have the benefit of objective  assistance  in  making  the  nominations,  we
request Mr Fali S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel and Mr Gopal  Subramaniam,
the learned Amicus Curiae  to  assist  the  Court  by  suggesting  names  of
persons with integrity and experience in managing a similar  enterprise.  We
request the learned Counsel appearing on  behalf  of  the  parties  to  also
place their suggestions before the Court so as to  facilitate  a  considered
decision;



In addition to  the  function  assigned  in  (v)  above,  the  Committee  of
administrators shall also  ensure  that  the  directions  contained  in  the
judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016 (which accepted the report of  the
Committee with modifications) are fulfilled and to adopt all  necessary  and
consequential steps for that purpose;

In view of the directions contained in (ii) above,  the  senior  most  Vice-
President of BCCI shall perform the duties of the President,  BCCI  and  the
Joint Secretary shall perform the duties of Secretary. Those of  the  office
bearers of BCCI who are not  disqualified  in  terms  of  clause  (i)  above
(other than the President and  Secretary)  may  continue  subject  to  their
filing an unconditional undertaking before this Court within four  weeks  of
the date of this order to abide by and implement  the  directions  contained
in the judgment dated 18 July 2016. Upon the Committee of administrators  as
nominated by this Court assuming charge, the existing office  bearers  shall
function subject  to  the  supervision  and  control  of  the  Committee  of
administrators. The Committee of administrators  would  have  the  power  to
issue all appropriate directions to facilitate due supervision and  control;
and



The remuneration payable to the members of the Committee  of  Administrators
shall be fixed in consultation with the Committee consisting of  Mr  Justice
R M Lodha, Mr Justice Ashok Bhan and Mr Justice R V Raveendran.The  role  of
the Justice R M Lodha Committee  shall  hereafter  be  confined  to  overall
policy and direction on such matters as may be referred by this Court.



We would request the leaned Senior Counsel and the learned Amicus Curiae  to
endeavour to submit their suggestions to this Court within  two  weeks.  The
proceedings shall be listed  before  this  Court  on  19  January  2017  for
pronouncement of directions in regard to the names of the administrators.

26    There shall accordingly be an order in these terms.



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


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


                         ..................................................J

                               [Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD]

New Delhi
January  02, 2017

No comments:

Post a Comment

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