BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET V/S.CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS July 18, 2016

                                         REPORTABLE



                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.4235 OF 2014

BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET            ..Petitioner

Versus

CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS.     ..Respondents


                                    WITH

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.4236 OF 2014

                                     AND

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.1155 OF 2015


                               J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, CJI.

1.    “Change” it is famously said is all that is  constant  in  the  world.
And yet the world hates change, no  matter,  it  is  only  change  that  has
brought progress for  mankind.   Statesmen,  Scholars  and  Scientists  have
spoken for change and  eulogised  its  significance.  For  instance  Charles
Darwin has spoken of ‘change’ in the context of his theory of evolution  and
declared “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, not the  most
intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Benjamin Franklin,  put
it more  pithily  when  he  said  “When  you’re  finished  changing,  you’re
finished”.  Albert Einstein spoke of change when he said “The  world  as  we
have created is a process of our thinking.  It  cannot  be  changed  without
changing our thinking.”  The  truth  is  that  resistance  to  change  stems
partly from people getting used to status quo and partly because any  change
is perceived to affect their vested  interest  in  terms  of  loss  of  ego,
status, power or resources.  This is true particularly  when  the  suggested
change is structural or organizational which involves some threat,  real  or
perceived, of personal loss to those involved.  No wonder,  therefore,  that
the portents of change which  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Committee
appointed by this Court symbolizes are encountering  stiff  resistance  from
several quarters interested in continuance of the status quo. The fact  that
the  recommendations  for  change  come  from  a  body  whose   objectivity,
fairness, sense of justice, equity and understanding of  the  problems  that
are crying for a solution are beyond any doubt or suspicion has made  little
or no difference to those opposing the recommendation.



2.    These proceedings are a sequel to our order dated 22nd  January,  2015
[BCCI vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 251].  We  had
by that order answered  seven  distinct  questions  formulated  in  para  20
thereof.  Six out of those questions  related  to  allegations  of  sporting
fraud, conflict of interest leveled against functionaries of  the  BCCI  and
the  jurisdiction  of  a  writ  court  to  intervene  and  issue  directions
considered appropriate in the circumstances. This Court held that even  when
the Board of Control for  Cricket  in  India  was  not  “State”  within  the
meaning of Article 12, it was amenable  to  the  writ  jurisdiction  of  the
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it  was  discharging
important public functions.  Building further on that  finding,  this  Court
had while dealing with Question No.7 set up a Committee  comprising  Justice
R.M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India as  Chairman  with  Justice  Ashok
Bhan and Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judges of this Court as members  to
determine and award punishment considered appropriate on those found  guilty
by Justice Mudgal’s  Committee  and  to  examine  for  any  disciplinary  or
punitive action, the role played by Mr. Sundar Raman with the  help  of  the
investigating team constituted for that purpose.  More  importantly  we  had
requested the Committee to examine and make suitable recommendations on  the
following aspects:

119.1. Amendments considered necessary to the memorandum of  association  of
BCCI and the prevalent rules and regulations for  streamlining  the  conduct
of elections to different posts/officers in  BCCI  including  conditions  of
eligibility  and  disqualifications,  if  any,  for  candidates  wanting  to
contest the election for such posts including the office  of  the  President
of BCCI.
119.2.  Amendments  to  the  memorandum  of  association,  and   rules   and
regulations considered  necessary  to  provide  a  mechanism  for  resolving
conflict of  interest should such  a  conflict   arise  despite  Rule  6.2.4
prohibiting  creation  or  holding  of  any  commercial  interest   by   the
administrators, with particular reference  to  persons,  who  by  virtue  of
their proficiency in the game of cricket,  were  to  necessarily  play  some
roles as coaches, managers, commentators, etc.

119.3. Amendment, if any, to the memorandum of  association  and  the  rules
and regulations of BCCI to  carry  out  the  recommendations  of  the  Probe
Committee headed by Justice Mudgal, subject to  such  recommendations  being
found acceptable by the newly appointed committee.

119.4. Any other recommendation with or without suitable  amendment  of  the
relevant rules and regulations, which the committee may  consider  necessary
to make with a view to preventing sporting frauds,  conflict  of  interests,
streamlining the  working  of  BCCI  to  make  it  more  responsive  to  the
expectations of the public at large and to bring transparency  in  practices
and procedures followed by BCCI.”

3.    The 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.   We  shall  presently  refer  to  the
findings and the recommendations of the Committee  in  greater  detail,  but
before we do so, we must mention that on receipt of the  Committee’s  report
and the recommendations, we had issued notice to the parties  to  give  them
an  opportunity  to  respond  to  the  same.   The  BCCI  has,  accordingly,
submitted its reply to the reports and the recommendations made therein.  In
addition, several other organizations and  individuals  have  intervened  to
file their responses and objections to the reports and  the  recommendations
and raised several issues.

4.    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.

5.    We have heard at considerable length learned counsel for  the  parties
and those appearing for  the  intervenors.   As  noticed  earlier  the  task
assigned to the Committee was to recommend such changes  in  the  rules  and
regulations of BCCI as would in the opinion of the Committee  safeguard  the
interest of public at large in the sport of  cricket,  improve  the  ethical
standards and discipline in the game, streamline and promote  efficiency  in
the management of BCCI,  provide  accessibility  and  transparency,  prevent
conflict of interest  situations  and  eradicate  political  and  commercial
interference and abuse and create  mechanisms  for  resolution  of  disputes
within the BCCI.  The direction issued by this Court for  all  round  reform
in the working of  the  BCCI  and  the  conduct  of  its  affairs  proceeded
fundamentally on the juristic foundation that BCCI  was  discharging  public
functions and is, therefore, subject to the rigours of ‘Public  Law’  making
it mandatory for the BCCI to adhere to  the  principles  of  reasonableness,
fairness, accountability and transparency.

6.     The  Committee  had  in  the  right  earnest  circulated  a  detailed
questionnaire to various stakeholders, aficionados and patrons of the  game.
 The questionnaire was based on the view taken by this  Court  in  the  main
judgment, the existing  rules  and  regulations  of  the  BCCI  and  various
articles and news reports which pointed out the flaws and loopholes  in  the
cricket administration in this country.   The  questionnaire  contained  135
questions grouped under 8 distinct heads of areas  of  concern  for  cricket
administration namely  (a)  Organization,  structure  and  relationship  (b)
Source and extent of jurisdiction (c) Offices, committees and elections  (d)
Commercial engagements, contracts  and  services  (e)  Audit,  accounts  and
finances (f) Player welfare and dispute resolution (g) Conflict of  interest
(h) Oversight and transparency.

7.     The  Committee  conducted  over  35  days  of  sittings  at   Mumbai,
Bangalore,  Chennai,  Kolkata,  Hyderabad  and  New  Delhi  in  the  process
providing ease of access to respective representatives  from  various  zones
and primary Test Centres.  The Committee also interacted with 75 persons  in
India including Former Captains,  International  and  First  Class  Players,
Coaches, Managers,  Administrators,  Journalists,  Talent  scouts,  Authors,
Lawyers, Club Owners, Selectors and a Former Chief Justice of a High  Court.
 Suggestions made by those who responded to the questionnaire and those  who
interacted  with  the  Committee  were  summarized.   The   Committee   also
researched  media  reports,   documentaries,   published   material,   draft
legislations, books and articles, apart from  several  unsolicited  missives
from  Cricket   fans,   local   experts   and   administrators   about   how
maladministration was rife in cricket all over the country.   The  Committee
appears to have received complaints of defalcation and siphoning  of  funds,
opaqueness   in   administration,   blatant   favouritism   and    political
interference in almost all State Associations, varying only in  degree  from
place  to  place.  The  Committee  prepared  a   comparative   analysis   of
international sports policy and  how  the  same  were  structured  in  their
constitution, electoral process and  overall  management  and  how  measures
exist to check conflict of interest and enforce ethics.

8.    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 came  to  the  conclusion  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 favoured.  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.  The Committee found that  the  Indian  Premier
League (IPL) which was a remunerative and  glamourized  component  in  India
had unsavoury 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.  Having said that the Committee did not hesitate to recognise  the
hardwork 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:

“At a time when the nation’s highest court has been compelled to  find  that
the game has fallen into disrepute, only extraordinary steps will  bring  it
back from this chasm.  We are conscious  that  some  of  our  proposals  may
evoke varied responses, but the collective conscience of this  Committee  is
clear that tough measures are called for to restore Indian  cricket  to  its
pinnacle of glory.  Individual interest will have to be sacrificed  for  the
sake of the institution, and no exigency of convenience or convention  shall
stand in the  way  of  a  whole  scale  structural  overhaul.   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.
   The report that follows is the Committee’s effort to  restore  Indian  to
its deserved status by putting in place good governance structures and  best
practices.”


9.    In  ‘Chapter  One’  of  its  report,  the  Committee  dealt  with  the
Structure and Constitution of BCCI, identified the problems that arise  from
their current status and the need for reform in the same.  For  clarity  and
better understanding of the solutions  proposed  by  the  Committee  we  may
gainfully extract Chapter One of the Report submitted by it.

      “Chapter One: The Structure and Constitution
            It was nearly 200 years after the British first brought  cricket
to India that its governing  body  was  created.   At  a  time  of  communal
Gymkhanas and  the  occasional  touring  team  from  England,  the  princely
families and other cricket patrons came together  to  create  the  Board  of
Control for Cricket in India,  which  was  registered  as  a  not-for-profit
society in Madras (now Chennai).  The  BCCI  has  grown  from  its  original
composition of less than half a dozen provincial members to have five  times
that number representing various groups and territorial divisions.

The Structure

      The BCCI at the moment 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  particular  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.

Problems

            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
populace 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.

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.


Solutions

      Almost universally, apart from those who represented the  associations
in Gujarat and Maharashtra, the prevalent view was that that the State is  a
fair unit of representation on the BCCI.  On a consideration of  the  entire
issue, the Committee is of the view that it is not proper for  only  one  or
two States to have multiple  members  when  all  other  States  have  single
memberships  (in  fact,  while  many   States   have   no   representation).
Democratic norms require each State should have  equal  representation,  and
therefore the Committee proposes the policy of ‘One State  –  One  Member  –
One Vote’.  In fact, this is the policy followed by  other  national  sports
associations (IHF &  AIFF),  each  of  whose  members  have  an  equal  vote
regardless of size or population.  Even at the international  level  (IOC  &
FIFA), this is the position.  Cricket ought to be no different.

      It was however also stated that as far as  disbursement  of  funds  by
BCCI for cricket development, it need not be uniform, but can depend on  the
need, infrastructure and other relevant criteria, formalized as a clear  and
equitable policy to incentivize Members to develop the sport.

      In keeping with the above principle, and notwithstanding any sense  of
sentiment, there would also be no place for  multiple  associations  from  a
single State.  The Committee is of the view that it be left to the  BCCI  to
decide which of the 3 associations from Gujarat  and  Maharashtra  would  be
taken to represent the entire State, and the remaining 2  associations  from
each State would become Associate Members, who  would  however  continue  to
field teams for competitions as they have done in  the  past.   Equally,  in
States where there are disputes concerning the  appropriate  governing  body
[Jammu & Kashmir, Bihar, Rajasthan, etc.], it is best left to  the  BCCI  or
the Court (as may be the case), to decide which association would  represent
the State.

      As the Services, Railways and Universities have hitherto enjoyed  Full
Member rights although  they  do  not  represent  a  particular  State,  the
Committee recommends that they be accorded the Status  of  Associate  Member
so that their views may still be considered while they will not have  voting
rights.  The same principle would apply to the Clubs (CCI  and  NCC),  which
do not field cricket teams and have no cause to be treated as Full Members.

      Those existing Members who are affected by the  changes  suggested  by
the Committee must appreciate that the changes are being  suggested  in  the
interest of the game as a whole and also having regard to BCCI’s role  as  a
national body to promote  and  control  cricket  in  India.   Governance  of
cricket being the central theme, the changes in membership in the  BCCI  are
inevitable and must be seen by all concerned in the  right  spirit  of  fair
representation and for the betterment of cricket administration.

      While there are seven Union Territories, it was found that only  Delhi
and Puducherry have a  Chief  Minister  and  are  treated  as  substantially
independent governing entities.  At first glance, there seems  no  rationale
for a distinction between the two, but what cannot be  denied  is  the  fact
that Delhi, apart from being the national capital,  is  also  a  major  Test
Centre with an international stadium and has nearly 20 times the  population
of Puducherry.  There may thus be some merit for Puducherry not  immediately
being included as a Full Member, especially when the issue  is  sub  judice.
Among the Union Territories, it would however be appropriate for  Puducherry
to be now inducted by the BCCI as an  Associate  Member  which  will  retain
rights to field a team and compete.

      The consequence of the above realignments would also  have  an  effect
on how the Zones are constituted.  The Zones would  consist  of  Members  in
such a manner that each of them would  be  reasonably  balanced  as  far  as
competition for the various zonal tournaments is concerned.   However,  this
reconstitution is best left to the BCCI for the purposes of convenience  and
competition.  It is also left to the discretion  of  the  BCCI  whether  the
Union Territories would field individual or combined teams  for  tournaments
and whether, for the purposes  of  expediency  and  convenience,  the  teams
representing the States of the North-East be combined as well.

      The categories of Affiliate and Future Members  are  therefore  to  be
removed, and only Full  Members  and  Associate  Members  will  remain,  the
former with voting rights and the latter without.  The 4  associations  from
the States of Maharashtra and  Gujarat  which  would  be  relegated  to  the
category of Associate Members shall, however,  continue  to  receive  grants
for cricket development, as  may  be  assessed  by  the  BCCI  depending  on
infrastructure and relevant criteria.  They will also  field  teams  in  the
domestic tournaments and host international matches.

       It  is  imperative  that  all  players  across   the   country   have
opportunities to represent their States and  Zones  and  then  the  national
team.  To punish the innocent residents and players of a State for the  real
or  perceived  shortcoming  of  the  Member  Association  is  illogical  and
unacceptable.  Even if an alternate Association is  not  readily  available,
BCCI should function as the parens patriae of Indian  cricket  and  continue
to provide equal and alternate avenues for that particular State. The  Model
Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations of BCCI are  at  ANNEXURE-
A”

10.   In  Annexure-A  to  the  report,  the  Committee  has  proposed  Model
Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations  of  the  BCCI  which  not
only sets out the objects and purposes of the BCCI with commendable  clarity
but also the Rules and Regulations governing its affairs.  It is  noteworthy
that neither the BCCI nor the interveners have found fault with the  revised
Memorandum of Association as proposed  by  the  Committee.   What  has  come
under attack both from the  BCCI  and  the  intervenors,  aggrieved  of  the
recommendations are the Rules and Regulations proposed by the Committee.

11.   Rule 3  of  the  proposed  Rules  and  Regulations  which  deals  with
Membership  and  Jurisdiction  of  Members,  inter   alia,   provides   that
Membership of the Board shall be confined  to  Full  Members  and  Associate
Members.  It further provides that each State  shall  be  represented  by  a
State Cricket  Association  duly  recognized  by  the  BCCI  and  that  such
associations shall be Full Members.  No State shall have more than one  Full
Member according to Rule 3 of the proposed Rules.  Rule  3-B  enumerates  30
States in the country including Delhi and Goa as Full Members of  the  BCCI.
 Rule 3-C provides for recognition  of  only  one  Member  out  of  multiple
Existing Members for a State while proposing to  convert  the  remaining  as
Associate Members.  Rule 3-C reads as under:
      “3-C. In  states  with  multiple  Existing  Members,  the  BCCI  shall
recognize one of them to represent the  State,  while  the  remaining  shall
become Associate Members.”


12.   Equally important is the Rule 3(b)(1)  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 governing body of  the  Association  shall  include  representatives  of
players and women, and a nominee of the Accountant General of the State.


(iii)  The  Association  shall  grant   automatic   membership   to   former
international players hailing from the State.

(iv) The Association shall not have proxy voting.

(v)  There  shall  be  a  provision  whereby  the  Office  Bearers  of   the
Association stand disqualified under any of the grounds laid  down  in  Rule
14(3) below.

(vi) The Association shall appoint an Electoral Officer, an  Ethics  Officer
and an Ombudsman.

(vii) The Association shall abide by the  principles  of  Transparency  laid
down in Chapter 8 of these Rules.”


13.   Rule 4 stipulates that each Full Member shall  have  one  vote  to  be
exercised through  its  authorized  representative  and  that  an  Associate
Member shall be entitled to participate in the  General  Body  Meetings  but
shall not be entitled either to vote or have its representative  elected  to
the Apex Council.

14.   In terms of Rule 3(b)(1)(v) (supra), a person  shall  be  disqualified
to be an Office Bearer of any association on the grounds set out under  Rule
14(3) which reads as under:
“14.  THE APEX COUNCIL
(3)  A person shall be disqualified from being a Councillor 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 a government servant [except for  the  nominee  under  Rule
14(2)(c)];


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;”


15.    In  Chapter  Two  of  the  Report  the  Committee  has  examined  the
composition of the office bearers of the BCCI and held  that  those  at  the
helm of the game come from a mixed milieu –  some  are  patrons  seeking  to
promote the  sport,  while  others  seek  to  promote  themselves,  with  no
particular attention being paid to cricket  itself.    The  Committee  takes
the view that cricket, with its popularity and its finances ought to be  run
professionally.  Towards that end, the  Committee  considers  it  imperative
that a strong governance structure is put in place, which will be  at  arm’s
length from the actual day-to-day management of  the  Associations  and  the
game.  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.

16.   The Committee takes the view that BCCI finds it difficult  to  control
and manage the IPL and its most successful venture threatens  its  existence
in its present form.  There seems to be no collective interest in  the  game
being promoted and cricket stands without a  custodian  for  its  protection
and propagation in its most passionately followed nation.

17.   The Committee then identifies the problems  under  different  headings
and suggests solutions for the same in the following words:
Concentration of power



From overall superintendence of the Board and its affairs to  taking  action
against players and even approving the composition of  the  team  chosen  by
the Selectors, the President is all-powerful. In practice,  this  power  was
even abused with the exercise of veto over  the  changes  in  captaincy  and
selection of ICC representatives. Incumbents  were  also  known  to  turn  a
blind eye when issues of corruption and mismanagement were brought to  their
notice, even going as far as permitting retrospective amendments to the bye-
laws to favour particular interests.




Lack of competence




The running of an organisation like the BCCI requires  a  clear  functioning
structure with well defined  ideas  to  be  executed.  The  present  Working
Committee of the BCCI consisting of the various office  bearers  elected  by
the  BCCI  and  other  representatives  of  the  Members  do  not  have  any
managerial expertise and requisite experience to run BCCI in a  professional
manner. Specialists and professionals  are  usually  engaged  in  an  ad-hoc
manner without any terms and tenures as would be expected with  any  billion
dollar entity.







Overlap of diverse functions



To borrow an analogy from political governance, it  is  necessary  that  the
making of laws and regulations (legislative  functions)  are  divorced  from
implementation thereof (executive functions) and  those  that  review  their
validity or implementation (judicial functions).  As  far  as  the  BCCI  is
concerned, the Working Committee not only  lays  down  the  relevant  rules,
regulations and bye-laws that  govern  the  BCCI,  but  also  oversee  their
implementation and takes final  decisions  when  a  Member  or  third  party
challenges either the rule  or  the  manner  of  its  implementation.  These
overlaps provide for extremely complicated and messy functioning.



Zonal considerations



There seems to be no rational basis for the Presidency to be rotated as  per
Zones, which has the effect  of  forsaking  merit.  A  person  who  has  the
support of as few as two or three members in his Zone  may  end  up  as  the
President, if it is the turn of that Zone for election of President.  Recent
amendments to the rules have permitted individuals who  are  not  even  from
the zone in question to be nominated to the post. For the same  reason,  the
Vice-Presidents who are elected from each of  the  five  zones  seem  to  be
merely ornamental without any specific functions.



No representation to players



It is only by accident that players are elected to the Working Committee  of
the BCCI. Their views are, more often than not, ignored, and the lack of  an
assured  position  at  the  governance  table  leaves  the  players  gravely
hamstrung. With arbitrary contracts and salaries that are dwarfed  by  those
playing for franchises, it is full credit to the national players that  they
continue with enthusiasm and patriotic fervour to  do  their  best  for  the
country when they have no say in the affairs of the very body towards  which
they are the primary contributors.



No representation to women



The BCCI has never seen a woman in the Working Committee,  and  for  a  body
that runs the sport in the country, the BCCI ought to have bestowed  greater
attention to the women’s game. Australia,  New  Zealand,  England  and  even
Pakistan are seen to regularly play the women’s game  with  only  governance
apathy responsible for the Indian women’s team playing few and  far  between
in all forms of the game. Greater support and promotion is required so  that
youngsters may also be attracted to it.







No independent voice



The BCCI has not embraced the modern principles of  open  governance,  which
is all  the  more  necessary  when  discharging  such  far  reaching  public
functions. The Working Committee consists  entirely  of  representatives  of
the Full Members, thereby making it’s functioning a closed-door affair  with
no  representation  of  players  or  audit  experts  to  act  as  checks  on
governance.



Unlimited terms and tenures



Many individuals occupy various posts in the BCCI for multiple terms and  on
multiple occasions, without any  ceiling  limit.  There  has  even  been  an
instance of a former President later becoming the Treasurer.



No disqualifications



There appears to be no ground  on  which  an  office  bearer  has  to  demit
office. No principles of conflict of interest, of age, of  conviction  by  a
criminal court or of holding an office under the Government  has  been  laid
down to disqualify an office bearer.


Solutions

      The governance of the BCCI must be decentralised.   No  individual  is
more  important  than  the  institution,  and  so  all  crucial  powers  and
functions hitherto bestowed exclusively on the President  will  have  to  be
divided across the governing body, which is to be known as the Apex  Council
(with a special and separate governing body for IPL, known as IPL  Governing
Council).


      The issue of competence regarding those managing the game  has  to  be
addressed by bringing in professional managers and  area  experts,  a  theme
which is discussed in detail in Chapter three.

      As the zonal rotation policy is without any rational basis, and as  it
has been decided to keep the State as the unit to become a Full  Member,  it
is consistent to have a  president  who  is  elected  from  among  the  Full
Members, so that the  best  and  most  competent  person  is  selected.  The
provision  for  five  Vice-Presidents  is  detrimental  to  efficiency   and
efficacy and so only  one  Vice-President  shall  be  elected  to  the  Apex
Council in the same manner as the Secretary, Joint Secretary and  Treasurer.


      The Apex Council should have a fair  mix  of  elected  representatives
and independent members.  It is recommended that it shall be  a  nine-member
body.  The five elected Office Bearers of BCCI  (President,  Vice-President,
Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer) shall be the members of  the  Apex
Council. In addition, the Apex Council shall have four  other  ‘Councillors’
– two (one male, one female) to be nominated  by  the  Players’  Association
which is to be formed, one to be elected by the Full Members  of  BCCI  from
amongst themselves and one to be nominated  by  the  Comptroller  &  Auditor
General of India. These measures address the following concerns:

Transparency is  brought  in,  and  independent  voices  are  heard  in  the
governance of the BCCI for the first time;

The public are the primary stakeholders in the game while its  players  form
its very core. Their  involvement  through  these  representatives  is  most
deserving and long awaited.

As women are nearly half the population of the country, the  anomalous  fact
that they do not have a voice in the governance of  the  sport  that  has  a
‘billion hearts’ beating for it is now rectified.

The nominee of the C&AG also brings financial  and  audit  experience  which
would bring in much required oversight into monitoring the finances  of  the
BCCI.

It continues to ensure a strong say for the Full  Members,  as  it  provides
that  two-thirds’  strength  on  the   Council   is   made   up   of   their
representatives.

In order to ensure that the posts are not treated as permanent positions  of
power, each term should be for three years.  The total period  for  which  a
person can be a member of the Apex Council shall be  nine  years  regardless
of the capacity in which such position  was  or  is  occupied.  However,  in
order to ensure that there is an appropriate cooling-off period,  no  person
shall be a member of  the  Apex  Council  for  two  consecutive  terms.  Any
elected Councillor shall stand automatically disqualified after  nine  years
as an office bearer, and shall  also  be  disqualified  from  contesting  or
holding the post if he has completed the age of 70 years, is  charged  under
the penal law, is  declared  to  be  of  unsound  mind,  is  a  Minister  or
government servant or holds any post of another sports body in the  country.
Any nominated Councillor however, would not  have  more  than  one  term  in
office. The endeavour in this regard is to filter those  who  are  able  and
enthusiastic to govern the game that is the national passion.



18.   In Chapter three of its report the Committee has examined BCCI’s  need
for reform in its cricketing and non cricketing management with the help  of
full time professionals with established skill-sets reporting systems, high-
level IT solutions etc. The Committee has  recommended  that  non-cricketing
management ought to be handled by professional managers headed  by  a  Chief
Executive Officer at the  top.   Pure  cricketing  matters  like  selection,
coaching and performance evaluation could however be left exclusively to  ex
players who have greater  domain  knowledge.   In  so  far  as  umpiring  is
concerned the same could be handled exclusively by umpires.   The  Committee
has with that objective recommended the following structure in place of  the
current management which is ill equipped to deal with issues  of  cricketing
and   non-cricketing   management,   thereby,   adversely   affecting    its
performance.  The flow chart of the Management structure recommended by  the
Committee is as under:

[pic]
19.   The Committee has out  of  the  existing  Committees  recommended  the
continuance of  two  standing  Committees  namely;  (1)  Senior  Tournaments
Committee and the (2)  Tours,  Fixtures  and  Technical  Committee  for  the
purpose of providing guidance and advice to the CEO and his Managers.

20.   In Chapter four of the report  the  Committee  has  discussed  matters
relating to Indian  Premier  League  and  recommended  that  the  franchisee
companies who are responsible for fostering competition and making  revenues
deserve to be given a role in the governance of the IPL.  The Committee  has
opined that the IPL Governing Council needs to be  reconstituted  with  more
autonomy, comprising not only representatives of the Full Members, but  also
of Franchisees,  Players  and  an  independent  auditor.   In  addition  the
Committee has recommended that the Committee/  Commission  to  be  appointed
under  the  IPL  Regulations  (Anti  Corruption  Code,  Code   of   Conduct,
Operational Rules, etc.) ought to consist of members selected by a panel  of
the Ombudsman, the Ethics Officer and the CEO which shall be  presided  over
by the Ombudsman thereby ensuring independence from the BCCI.


21.   Chapter five of the report recommends  two  initiatives  viz.  (i)  An
Association of Players and  (ii)  a  strict  set  of  procedures  to  govern
players’ Agents.  The Committee notes that while  almost  all  Test  playing
nations have a Players’ Association, there has been some reluctance  on  the
part  of  the  BCCI  to  initiate  such  a  move,  ostensibly  due  to   the
apprehension of unionisation. Similarly, both  England  and  Australia  have
agents’  accreditation  systems  in  place  to  ensure   that   only   those
professionals who qualify through a rigorous knowledge and ethics  selection
process alone represent the players. These systems are administered  by  the
National Board in conjunction with  the  respective  Players’  Associations.
The Committee accordingly recommends setting up of  a  Players’  Association
with a Steering Committee comprising four persons named in the  Report.   It
has also proposed norms for agent’s registration to be administered by  BCCI
in consultation with the Cricket Players’ Association.

22.   In Chapter six the Committee  deals  with  Conflict  of  Interest  and
Issues  Central  to  the  Regulation  of  Ethical  Conduct  in  sport.   The
Committee has spelt out specific types of Conflict of Interest, and  applied
them to individuals employed  with,  or  connected  to  the  BCCI  with  the
recommendation that  every  Office  Bearer,  Player,  Councillor,  Employee,
Administrator, Team Official, Umpire or other person connected to the  BCCI,
its Members or the IPL and its Franchisees is mandated to avoid any  act  or
omission which is, or is perceived to be, likely to bring  the  interest  of
the individual in conflict with the interest of the game of cricket.

23.   In Chapter Seven, the Committee has dealt  with  need  for  Ombudsman,
Ethics and Electoral Officer.  The Committee  notes  that  several  disputes
that exist within the BCCI are born out of years  of  apathy  in  governance
and gross mismanagement.  The Committee  has  found  that  the  relationship
between the Associations, on the one hand, and the BCCI, on the  other,  has
rarely been equitable and balanced, with the latter exercising its  hegemony
over the former. The Committee has therefore recommended moderation of  such
relationship in an objective manner.  The  Committee  has  referred  to  the
problems  of  disgruntlement  and  litigation  in  the  States   of   Bihar,
Rajasthan, Delhi and Jammu  and  Kashmir.   The  Committee  has  found  that
absence  of  suitable  dispute  resolution  mechanism  has  compounded   the
situation.  Even the arbitration system that has hitherto existed  has  been
found to be insufficient and palpably inappropriate when  two  unequals  are
pitted against each other, especially with the State associations  remaining
beholden to the Board for matches, grants and revenues.  In order to  reduce
the judicial role and the burdening of the courts and  to  expedite  dispute
resolution, the Committee has  recommended  the  appointment  of  a  retired
Judge of the Supreme Court or a former Chief Justice of a High Court as  the
Ombudsman of the BCCI, to be appointed once a year  at  the  Annual  General
Meeting to investigate any complaint received by him/her or  suo  motu   and
to resolve any dispute between the Board and any of the  above  entities  or
among themselves by following the principles of natural justice,  production
of evidence and fair hearing.  So also  the  Committee  has  recommended  an
Ethics  Officer  for  monitoring  adherence  to  the  principles   governing
avoidance of Conflict of  Interest.   The  Committee  has  recommended  that
Ethics Officer shall have powers inter alia of  laying  down  of  additional
guidelines  or  bye-laws  on  ethics,   initiation   of   investigation   or
adjudicatory proceedings and  the  award  of  warnings,  fines,  reprimands,
suspensions or other action as may be recommended to  the  BCCI.   According
to the recommendation all non-IPL ethics issues shall  be  administered  and
adjudicated by the Ethics Officer who shall be a former Judge  of  the  High
Court to be appointed by the Board.  Recommendation for  appointment  of  an
Electoral Officer for conducting elections of the Committee under the  Rules
has also been made by the Committee. The Committee has recommended  that  in
order to ensure competence and to distance the entity from any suspicion  or
bias, a former Election Commissioner for India could  be  appointed  as  the
Electoral Officer for the BCCI, whose decision on any  subject  relating  to
elections shall be final and conclusive.


24.   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 has taken cognizance of complaints of many stakeholders that  very
little of the functioning of the BCCI is done  in  a  fair  and  transparent
manner and that those who seek greater information are  either  rebuffed  by
the Board or won over by enticements.    The  Committee  has  observed  that
those whose professional  livelihood  depends  on  cricket  acknowledge  the
BCCI’s total sway over the sport, and choose to remain  silent  rather  than
upset the apple cart. The Committee, therefore, recommends that players  and
the public, ought to have access to all rules  and  regulations,  codes  and
instructions of the BCCI in English and Hindi and that the  same  should  be
uploaded on the  official  website  of  the  BCCI.   The  Committee  further
notices that the commercial angle has overtaken the enjoyment of the  sport,
with advertisements continuing many a times even after the  first  ball  and
again commencing even after the last ball  is  played  thereby  interrupting
the full and proper broadcast of the game. Regardless  of  the  wicket  that
has fallen, century having been hit or other momentous event,  full  liberty
is given by BCCI to the broadcasters to maximize  their  income  by  cutting
away to commercial,  thereby  robbing  the  sport  of  its  most  attractive
attribute  –  emotion.   The  Committee,  therefore,  recommends  that   all
existing contracts for international test and  one-day  matches  be  revised
and new ones to ensure that only breaks taken  by  both  teams  for  drinks,
lunch  and  tea  will  permit  the  broadcast   to   be   interrupted   with
advertisements as is  the  practice  internationally.   The  Committee  has,
further, recommended  that  the  entire  space  of  the  screen  during  the
broadcast will be dedicated to the display of the game,  save  for  a  small
sponsor logo or sign.

25.   The Committee  has  further  found  that  there  is  need  for  better
financial management and expenses  or  professional  services.   Keeping  in
mind that BCCI is not for profit, the Committee  recommends  that  resources
must be used for the development of the game and financial prudence must  be
exercised to avoid any unnecessary expenditure.

26.   The Committee also records  a  finding  that  there  are  no  standard
norms,  objectives  and  criteria   for   selection   and   empanelment   of
professionals in the field of law,  audit,  etc.   Similarly  infrastructure
contracts, media engagements, television rights  and  supply  of  equipments
are not  regulated  by  any  norms  or  procedures  to  ensure  a  fair  and
transparent  selection  and  engagement  of  the  contractors  and   service
providers.  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.

27.   The Committee further recommends that norms and  procedures  ought  to
be laid down for the engagement of service  professionals  and  contractors,
and full transparency of all tenders  floated  and  bid  invited  by  or  on
behalf of the BCCI will also be maintained.  The  Website  shall  also  have
links to the various stadia with seating capacities and  transparent  direct
ticketing facilities.

28.   The Committee has opined that people of the country have  a  right  to
know the details about the functions of the  BCCI  and  its  activities  and
recommends to the legislature to bring BCCI within the purview  of  the  RTI
Act as a public authority.

29.   More importantly, the Committee  has  recommended  that  the  auditors
engaged by the BCCI should be tasked  to  not  only  undertake  a  financial
analysis but also a  performance  audit  (Compliance  Report)  to  determine
whether State associations have actually expended their grants  towards  the
development of the game and  mark  them  on  a  report  card  which  may  be
utilized to determine the  financial  support  they  deserve  the  following
year. This oversight also needs to be  considered  in  the  opinion  of  the
Committee because of the high and unreasonable expenditure incurred  by  the
Board under various heads which deserves to be limited and streamlined.

30.   In Chapter Nine of the  Report,  the  Committee  has  dealt  with  the
menace of match fixing and betting.  The Committee has noted that  there  is
a fundamental difference between betting and match/ spot fixing.  While  the
latter interferes with the integrity of the game and attempts to change  the
course of the match, the former is a general malaise indulged  by  different
sections of the society not only with reference to cricket but  other  games
also. The Committee considers the match/  spot-fixing  as  unpardonable  and
opines that the only way to deal with the same effectively  is  to  make  it
punishable by law. The  Committee  in  that  regard  recommends  appropriate
amendment by the legislature.



31.   As regards betting, the Committee has on the basis  of  responses  and
opinions tendered before it, recommended to  the  legislature  to  make  the
same legal with certain safeguards enlisted in  the  report.   While  saying
so, the Committee  has  taken  the  view  that  betting  by  Administrators,
Players, Match Officials, Team Officials, Owners, etc., should  continue  to
be an offence under the BCCI and IPL Rules and  Regulations.  The  Committee
has made  certain  recommendations  to  fulfill  the  need  to  educate  and
sensitize young players and debutants about the game ethics and the need  to
inculcate discipline and  integrity  among  players.   It  has  additionally
suggested certain measures like  preparing  Cricketers  Handbook  for  young
players, arranging lectures and interactions with cricket players and  sport
persons of unimpeachable integrity with  regard  to  game  ethics  and  also
setting up of  Integrity  Unit  consisting  of  former  cricket  players  of
repute, committed to the cause of cricket, to act as mentors for  the  young
players.



32.   The Committee has in addition recommended preparation  of  a  database
of undesirable elements (bookies, fixers,  etc.,)  to  be  shared  with  the
players and team officials.  It has also emphasized the need  for  verifying
and ascertaining whether the person controlling the  prospective  franchisee
has any criminal antecedents.



33.   In Chapter Ten of the Report the Committee  identifies  several  other
problem areas that call for reform.  These  problems  have  been  identified
and elaborated under the headings  ‘Membership  and  Privileges,  Posts  and
Tenures,  Voting,  Compliance,  Expenditure  and  Infrastructure,  Lack   of
Professionalism, Dual Posts, Interference  in  Selection  and  Transparency.
The Committee has, after an elaborate  discussion  under  each  one  of  the
above headings, proposed solutions to the same in the following words:

“Solutions

There was a consistent view among respondents to the queries  that  many  of
the  ills  befalling  Indian  cricket  find  their  roots   in   the   State
Associations and their lack  of  administration.  The  root  cause  for  the
problem is that the BCCI  is  making  substantial  annual  grants  regarding
which there is no oversight, and so the status quo remained as it was,  with
little effort by the provincial administrators.

Therefore, 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.

The conflicts that arise by holding office both  at  the  BCCI  and  in  the
State Associations ought to be brought to an end by  automatic  vacation  of
post  at  the  local  level  when  elected  to  the  BCCI.   Also,   certain
disqualifications have to be laid down that apply to those who  seek  office
in the State Associations, along with limits on  their  tenures  and  terms.
Corrective measures are to  be  brought  into  place  so  that  professional
managers will interface with the State Governments and  attempt  to  rectify
any  prevailing  shortfalls  or  drawbacks  as  far  as  infrastructure  and
permissions are concerned.

The electoral process will have  to  be  transparent  and  independent,  for
which an Electoral Officer (a retired Central or respective  State  Election
Commissioner) will have be appointed. In the event that no  such  person  is
available, any other former State Election Commissioner, preferably  from  a
neighbouring  State  may  be  appointed.  This  officer  would  conduct  and
supervise the entire process of elections from the filing of nominations  to
the  declaration  of  results  and  the  resolution  of  any  disputes   and
objections during the election.

It is also necessary to have an independent  selection  committee  in  which
the Governing body of the State Association will have no say, and  also  for
the cricket committees manned only by former players to have an  independent
say  on  coaching  and  evaluation  of  team  performance,  apart  from  the
selection of players.

The policies of BCCI regarding dispute resolution and Conflict of  Interest,
as well as the norms for Agents’ Registration will  have  to  apply  to  the
State Associations as well. In order to administer  this,  the  associations
may also appoint an  Ombudsman-cum-Ethics  Officer.  It  would  be  open  to
multiple States to have a single Ombudsman / Ethics Officer so as to  reduce
expenditure. The person so appointed shall be an eminent person well  versed
in adjudicatory processes  and  it  will  be  his/her  task  to  decide  all
disputes between the Association and any  of  its  constituents  (Districts,
Clubs, etc.), or between the constituents, or complaints of  any  player  or
member of the public, by following the principles of natural justice  before
rendering a decision.

As Ethics Officer, it shall be his duty  to  administer  the  principles  of
Conflict of Interest and recommend such action as may be deemed fit  as  far
as an Office Bearer, Employee, Player, Team  Official  or  other  individual
connected to the State Association is concerned. Needless to say, if  it  is
an issue that concerns the BCCI as well, the  Ethics  Officer  of  the  BCCI
shall proceed to decide the issue. The Ethics Officer shall also decide  all
issues concerning the violation of the Agents’ Registration norms as far  as
players of the State are concerned.

Each State Association will necessarily have  a  website  that  carries  the
following minimum details:

The Constitution, Memorandum of Association and Rules  &  Regulations,  Bye-
Laws and Office Orders and directions that govern  the  functioning  of  the
Association, its Committees, the Ombudsman and the Ethics Officer.

The list of Members of the Association as well as those who are defaulters.

The annual accounts &  audited  balance  sheets  and  head-wise  income  and
expenditure details.

Details of male, female  and  differently  abled  players  representing  the
State at all  age  groups  with  their  names,  ages  and  detailed  playing
statistics.

Advertisements and invitations for tenders when the Association  is  seeking
supply of any goods or services (exceeding a minimum prescribed  value),  or
notices regarding recruitment, as also the  detailed  process  for  awarding
such contracts or making such recruitments.

Details of all goals and milestones for  developing  cricket  in  the  State
along with timelines and the measures undertaken to achieve each of them.

Details of all office bearers and other  managerial  staff  (including  CEO,
COO, CFO, etc.)

Details of directives from the BCCI and their compliances.

These websites will have  to  be  maintained  and  updated  at  least  on  a
quarterly basis. All the above information will have  to  be  maintained  at
the registered office of the State Association and  when  sought,  the  same
shall be shared with the applicant on the payment of a  reasonable  fee,  as
may be prescribed by the Association.

The cost of construction of a stadium runs into hundreds of crores.  On  the
other hand, formation of a cricket playing ground costs a small fraction  of
the cost of a stadium. It makes more sense to have cricket  playing  grounds
in each District, rather than having one or two stadia in a State. In  fact,
the Committee learns that some members  are  merely  collecting  the  grants
from BCCI and depositing them in a  Bank  so  as  to  accumulate  sufficient
funds necessary for taking up construction of a stadium. The result is  some
smaller States have neither a stadium nor  well  developed  cricket  playing
grounds. BCCI should therefore encourage the State Associations to:

Have as many cricket playing grounds and fields instead of multiple  stadia,
which will enable greater usage and access to greater number of players.

Convert existing grounds and fields into turf wickets so that  international
standard facilities are made available even from a young age.

To make the existing stadia  amenable  to  other  sports  by  providing  for
alternate surfaces to be laid (Astroturf  for  hockey,  Carpet  for  tennis,
etc.) so that  income  may  be  generated  and  there  would  be  all  round
development of sport, care being taken not to damage the  pitch.   But  they
should not be used for public functions where thousands will  stomp  on  the
ground.

The above recommendations relating  to  State  Associations  (Full  Members)
will also be applicable to the 4 associations relegated to the  category  of
Associate Members and who are entitled to disbursement  of  the  grant  from
the BCCI.”



34.   The reforms recommended by the Committee have been finally  summed  up
under the heading “End of the Innings” in the following words:


“END OF THE INNINGS

If there has been one unifying factor in India, it has  been  cricket.  From
C.K.Nayudu to Virat Kohli, the 32 captains of India and the  men  they  have
led have been equally deified and vilified by the masses, for  such  is  the
ability of the game to inflame passions. It is on behalf of  these  devotees
of willow and leather that this Committee submits this effort to  edify  the
BCCI.

In an effort to present the recommendations made by the Committee in  brief,
the following synopsis of our proposals are set out:

Membership



‘One State, One Vote’



Only cricket Associations representing the States would have  voting  rights
as  Full  Members  of  the  Board,  thereby  ensuring  equality  among   the
territorial  divisions.  Any  other  existing  members  would  be  Associate
Members.



Zones



‘Zones for Tournaments alone’



The Zones would  be  relevant  only  for  the  purpose  of  the  tournaments
conducted amongst themselves, but not for nomination to  the  governance  of
the Board or to the various Standing Committees.



State Associations



‘State Associations - Uniformity in Structure’



The Associations that are the Members would  necessarily  have  to  restrict
the tenures of office bearers and prescribe disqualifications, do away  with
proxy voting, provide transparency in functioning, be open to  scrutiny  and
audit by the BCCI and include players in  membership  and  management.  They
would also have to abide by the conflict of interest  policy  prescribed  by
the Board, and divorce the Association from the social club, if any.




Office Bearer




‘Limited Tenures & Cooling Off’



While  all  the  existing   office   bearers   (President,   Vice-President,
Secretary,  Treasurer  and  Joint  Secretary)  are  retained   in   honorary
positions, the number of Vice Presidents is pruned from five to  one.  Their
duties  have  been  realigned.  The  President  is  shorn  of  his  say   in
selections. The additional vote for the President at  meetings  is  deleted.
The terms of these Office Bearers continue to be of  3  years,  but  with  a
maximum of 3 such terms regardless of the post  held,  with  a  cooling  off
period after each such term.



Governance

‘Governance separated from management’


The 14 member Working Committee is replaced  by  a  9  member  Apex  Council
(with one-third independent members) consisting of  the  Office  Bearers  of
the  BCCI,  an   elected   representative   of   the   General   Body,   two
representatives of the Players Association (one man and one woman)  and  one
nominee from the C&AG’s office. Terms of  eligibility  and  disqualification
are specified with a bar on Ministers and government servants.

Management

‘Professionalism in management’

Professionalism is brought in by introducing a CEO with  strong  credentials
assisted by a team of managers to handle non-cricketing affairs.  The  large
number of Standing Committees and Sub-Committees created  by  the  BCCI  has
been reduced to two essential ones that would advice the CEO with  reference
to tours, technical aspects and tournaments.

The selection, coaching, performance  evaluation  and  umpiring  are  to  be
handled by Cricket Committees manned only by former professionals.  Specific
provisions  have  been  made  to  encourage  cricket  for  women   and   the
differently-abled.

The IPL



‘Limited Autonomy for IPL’



The  Governing  Council  of  the  IPL  is  reduced  to  9,  but  includes  2
representatives of the Franchisees and nominees of the Players’  Association
and the C&AG’s office.



Players

‘A voice for Players’



There shall be a Cricket Players’ Association affording  membership  to  all
international and most first class men and women  retired  cricketers.  This
Association shall discharge assigned functions with  the  financial  support
of the BCCI. It shall be brought into existence by an  independent  steering
committee.



Agents

‘Arms length for agents’



Players’  interests  are  protected  by  ensuring  that  their  Agents   are
registered under the prescribed norms  administered  by  the  BCCI  and  the
Players’ Cricket Association.



Conflict of Interest

‘Avoidance of conflicts’



Detailed norms have  been  laid  down  to  ensure  there  is  no  direct  or
indirect,  pecuniary  or  other  conflict  or  appearance  thereof  in   the
discharge of the functions of those persons associated or  employed  by  the
BCCI, its Committees, its Members or the IPL Franchisees. These norms  shall
be administered by an Ethics Officer.



The Ombudsman and the Electoral Officer

‘Independent monitors’



Provision has  been  made  to  have  an  independent  ombudsman  to  resolve
grievances of Members, Administrators,  Players  and  even  members  of  the
public as per the procedures laid down. Similarly, an independent  Electoral
Officer to oversee the entire electoral process is also mandated.

































Functioning

‘Transparency’



The BCCI must provide the relevant information in discharge  of  its  public
functions.  All  rules  and  regulations,  norms,   details   of   meetings,
expenditures, balance sheets, reports and orders of authorities  are  to  be
uploaded on the website as well.



Oversight

‘Accountability’



An independent auditor to verify how the  Full  Members  have  expended  the
grants given to them by the BCCI, to record their  targets  and  milestones,
and to submit a separate compliance report in this regard.



Betting & Match-fixing

‘Legalization for betting and Criminalization for match-fixing’



A recommendation is made  to  legalize  betting  (with  strong  safeguards),
except  for  those  covered  by  the  BCCI  and  IPL  regulations.  Also   a
recommendation for match/spot-fixing to be made a criminal offence.



Ethics for Players

‘Awareness and sensitization’



Provisions to be made for lectures,  classes,  handbooks  and  mentoring  of
young players.

The Committee fervently hopes that this report will bring cricket fans  back
to the fold and put an end to regional excesses  and  imbalances,  reign  by
cliques, corruption and red tape, all of which have harmed the game and  the
youngsters looking for nothing more than to take the field in flannels.”

35.   In  order  to  give  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Committee  a
practical shape, suitable amendments to the  Memorandum  of  Association  of
BCCI and the Rules and Regulations have been suggested as  Annexure  ‘A’  to
the Report. The Committee has, at the same time, proposed  a  code  for  the
Cricket Players’ Association which forms Annexure ‘B’ to the  Report,  while
Regulations for Registration  of  Players’  Agents  have  been  set  out  at
Annexure ‘C’ to the Report.


36.   In response to the notice issued by this Court, the BCCI has filed  an
affidavit sworn by Shri Anurag Singh Thakur, Honorary Secretary of the  BCCI
and currently President of BCCI in which the BCCI claims  to  have  accepted
and implemented several recommendations made by the Committee.   In  Para  6
of the Affidavit the deponent has identified  the  recommendations  accepted
by BCCI and the  steps  already  taken  by  it  or  those  being  taken  for
implementation, in the following words:
“6.Of the recommendations contained in the Report,  BCCI  has  accepted  and
has either implemented or is implementing the following recommendations:

Appointment  of  an  Ombudsman:   The  BCCI  has  amended  its   Rules   and
Regulations to provide for the appointment of an Ombudsman at  every  Annual
General Meeting to deal with complaints of conflicts  of  interest  and  any
act of indiscipline or misconduct or violation of any rules and  regulations
of the BCCI by an administrator.  Thus, the Ombudsman  now  contemplated  by
the amended Rules and  Regulations  of  the  BCCI  effectively  combine  the
functions of the Ethics Officer and the Ombudsman within the  scope  of  the
Ombudsman’s functions whilst omitting disputes  between  the  BCCI  and  IPL
franchisees, which are covered  by  existing  arbitration  agreements.   The
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Shah,  Former  Chief  Justice  of  the  Delhi  High
Court, has been appointed as the Ombudsman and has taken cognizance  of  and
disposed of several complaints already.

Avoidance of Conflict  of  Interest:   The  BCCI  has  formulated  Rules  on
Conflict of Interest, pursuant to which several persons have  resigned  from
positions on account of  conflict  of  interest.   Any  person  can  make  a
complaint to the Ombudsman regarding conflict of  interest.   The  Rules  on
Conflict of Interest provide that every complaint shall be decided within  a
period of 30 (Thirty) days  from  the  receipt  of  the  complaint  and  the
decision of the Ombudsman shall be final and binding.  A copy of  the  Rules
on Conflict of Interest is annexed hereto and marked as  ANNEXURE-A   (pg.61
to 63)
Availability of Rules  and  Regulations  on  BCCI  Website:  All  Rules  and
Regulations of the BCCI, Annual Reports along with the financial reports  as
well as details of all expenses above Rs.25 lakhs have been  made  available
on the BCCI website.

Introduction   of   Professional   Management:   BCCI   has   accepted   the
recommendation to professionalise its management and  introduce  a  two-tier
structure.  The BCCI presently has four General Managers viz. (1)  Professor
Ratnakar Shetty (General Manager – Administration), who has been  associated
with  the  administration  of  BCCI  since  2003,  first  as  the  Executive
Secretary and later as Chief Administrative Officer; (2)  Dr.  M.V.  Sridhar
(General Manager – Cricket Operations), who is  a  former  Indian  Cricketer
and has served as the Hon. Secretary of the Hyderabad  Cricket  Association;
(3) Mr. Amrit Mathur (General Manager  –  Communication  and  Coordination),
who is in charge of media and coordination with Government of India  (Sports
Ministry,  Home  Ministry  and  External  Affairs  Ministry)  and  has  been
involved with the BCCI for over two decades inter alia as media  manager  on
a number of overseas tours; and (4) Mr. Dhiraj Malhotra (General  Manager  –
Events and Leagues), who has worked in organizing ICC World events for  over
a decade and was also associated with organizing a number of sports  leagues
including Indian Premier League, etc.  A  head-hunting  agency  has  already
been appointed for the purpose of identifying candidates for appointment  as
a CEO and a CFO.

Limited Due Diligence of audited accounts of State Associations for  finding
out how associations have utilized the funds  made  available  by  Board  to
State Associations: BCCI Rules and Regulations have been amended to  empower
BCCI to appoint an independent  auditor  to  scrutinize  the  statements  of
accounts of members with regard to payments made by BCCI to such member  and
all further payments due to such member shall be released after the  receipt
of diligence reports by the BCCI.  BCCI immediately  engaged  agencies  like
PricewaterhouseCoopers,  Deloitte  and  Grant  Thorton  to  carry  out   due
diligence of State Associations.  As part of this process, a  financial  due
diligence exercise is currently  underway  in  respect  of  financial  years
ending 31st March 2014 and 31st March 2015.


Measures  to  prevent  match-fixing/  spot  fixing:    Although   BCCI   has
implemented the Anti Corruption Code since 2012, the biggest  obstacle  that
has been faced by BCCI in  its  endeavour  to  prevent  match-fixing/  spot-
fixing has been the absence powers to gather  intelligence  on  the  subject
and/ or policing powers with the BCCI’s  Anti  Corruption  Unit.   For  this
reason, the BCCI has requested the Government of Maharashtra to establish  a
sports integrity intelligence gathering unit under the joint  aegis  of  the
BCCI and Maharashtra Police whilst offering to fund the costs of  doing  so,
if required.  A copy of the letter dated 18th  November  2015  addressed  by
the BCCI to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra is annexed hereto  and
marked as ANNEXURE –B (pg.64 to 65)

Decentralisation of powers with the  President:   By  virtue  of  being  the
Chairman of the Annual General Meetings and Special General Meetings of  the
BCCI, the President earlier had  an  independent  vote  (in  addition  to  a
casting vote) at General Meetings.  Further, any dispute as to admission  or
rejection of  a  vote  at  General  Meetings  was  earlier  decided  by  the
President.  BCCI Rules and Regulations have been amended  to  do  away  with
the independent vote of the President at General Meetings.   Similarly,  any
dispute as to admission or rejection of a vote at General Meetings will  now
be decided by a simple majority.

37.   Having said that, the affidavit questions the wisdom  behind  the  one
State one Vote principle evolved  by  the  Committee  and  claims  that  the
membership structure of the BCCI is based on level of  cricketing  activity,
which according to it has a more rational nexus with  the  objects  of  BCCI
than geographical limits of the States  settled  on  linguistic  basis  much
after the BCCI was formed.

38.   The BCCI asserts equal representation/ voting  rights  to  each  State
irrespective of the level  of  cricketing  activity  therein  is  likely  to
result in a situation where States with little  or  no  cricketing  activity
will abuse their  representation/voting  rights.   BCCI  also  pleads  legal
impediments in disenfranchising and/or demoting  existing  Full  Members  or
depriving them of their vested  rights  while  assuming  that  it  will  not
induct any new member from the State which already has  a  member  and  will
induct only one full Member provided the requisite  criteria  is  satisfied.
BCCI also expresses difficulties in recognizing one of  the  three  existing
members in the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra as  representing  the  said
States while converting  the  Membership  of  the  other  two  as  associate
members.

39.   BCCI argues that there is no criteria on the basis  of  which  it  can
decide as to which of the existing three members should  be  retained  as  a
full member.  It is submitted that even assuming that the  BCCI  decides  to
retain  one  of  the  three  existing  full  members  as  a   full   member,
jurisdiction of any such retained member will extend  to  the  entire  State
including the area over which the jurisdiction of the other two member  from
that State  extends.   This  would  in-turn  imply  that  apart  from  being
relegated as an associate member,  the  remaining  full  members  from  that
State will no longer be in-charge of cricketing activities,  cricket  teams,
stadia and players within  their  respective  erstwhile  jurisdictions.   It
would  thereby  disable  them  to  field  teams  to  participate   in   BCCI
tournaments.

40.   BCCI also apprehends that  infrastructure  available  with  the  three
full members each from  Maharashtra  and  Gujarat  will  be  wasted  if  the
recommendation  of  the  Committee  is  accepted.   It  is  contended   that
Regulations 6(A) and 6(B) of BCCI’s existing Rules and Regulations lay  down
the procedures and criteria for admitting any new members  based  on  levels
of  cricketing  activity  in  their  respective   territories   apart   from
provisions  that  provide  for  promotion  of  an  Affiliate  Member  to  an
Associate Member as well as for promotion of an Associate Member to  a  Full
Member to take care of the interests of all concerned.  This  method  is  in
tune with the method followed by International Cricket Council  (for  short,
“the ICC”) where a member has to reach a certain level  in  performance  and
infrastructure before it may be promoted to the next level.

41.   BCCI has also faulted the proposed reduction in advertisement  as  the
same will according to it have a crippling effect on  the  financial  health
of the Board and adversely impact its  ability  to  carry  out  its  various
programmes. Restricting advertisements only to drinks, lunch and tea  breaks
will substantially de-value the broadcast rights and reduce  the  income  of
the BCCI as broadcasters will in that  case  pay  a  only  fraction  of  the
amount that they are now paying for the  broadcast  rights.   The  affidavit
traces the history  of  the  growth  of  the  activities  of  the  BCCI  and
corresponding growth in  its  finances.   Induction  of  a  nominee  of  the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India  (for  short,  “the  CAG”)  on  the
Management Committee/Apex Council has  also  been  stoutly  opposed  by  the
BCCI.  Relying upon Article 2.9  (B)  of  the  Memorandum  and  Articles  of
Association of the ICC it is urged that inclusion  of  nominee  of  the  CAG
would  tantamount  to  Government  interference  in  the  administration  of
Cricket and would call for adverse action  by  the  ICC  against  the  BCCI.
Objections  are  also  taken  to  the  proposed  induction  of  franchisee’s
representatives in IPL Governing Council.  The BCCI contend that there is  a
conflict of interest between representatives  of  IPL  Franchisees  and  the
Governing Council as the later decides  matters  such  as  player  retention
policy, posting of umpires for IPL matches, etc.  So also a  prohibition  on
re-appointment of Members of  the  Managing  Committee  recommended  by  the
Committee has been opposed by the BCCI  on  the  ground  that  there  is  no
rationale for prohibiting any individual  from  being  associated  with  the
management of the BCCI beyond nine years particularly when there is  an  age
cap of 70 years in the Report that is simultaneously sought to be imposed.

42.   Prohibition of Association of Ministers/ Government Servants/  Persons
holding posts in another Sports Body in honorary capacity as recommended  by
the Committee has also been opposed by the BCCI.  It is contended  that  the
association of Government Servants and Ministers  has  benefitted  the  BCCI
immensely and that all  such  persons  work  in  purely  honorary  capacity.
Travel, boarding and lodging costs of such office  bearers  only  are  taken
care of  by  the  BCCI.   BCCI  has  also  urged  that  the  restriction  on
simultaneous holding of an office in a State association  and  the  BCCI  is
unreasonable as  senior  citizens  also  make  substantial  contribution  in
sports as their counterparts in  law,  judiciary,  public  life,  Parliament
etc. As regards Players Association and Board representation, the  BCCI  has
welcomed the suggestion of formation of a Players’ Association  but  opposed
any funding by the BCCI as recommended by the Committee.  It  has  also  not
favored players’ representation in the Board  on  the  ground  that  several
players have in the past served as Office Bearers  in  the  BCCI  and  State
Association on their own merit.  Dissolution of existing Committees too  has
been opposed by the BCCI.  In conclusion, the affidavit filed on  behalf  of
the BCCI submits that while  the  report  seems  to  have  achieved  a  very
laudable objective the same is only  recommendatory  and  ought  not  to  be
imposed on a society formed by private individuals who enjoy  constitutional
protection under Article 19 of  the  Constitution  of  India.  It  has  also
raised an issue that the Committee did not give a hearing to BCCI  regarding
the proposed recommendations. Although  a  questionnaire  was  sent  to  the
office bearers of  the  BCCI  including  the  honorary  President,  honorary
Secretary and the honorary Treasurer and even when  the  office  bearers  of
the BCCI had appeared before the Committee to  explain  their  view  points,
the failure of the Committee to put  the  proposed  recommendations  to  the
BCCI has, according to the BCCI, denied to them an opportunity to  represent
against  the  same.   The  affidavit  finally  acknowledges  that  BCCI  has
benefitted greatly from the report of the Lodha Committee  and  that  it  is
committed to  implementing  the  same  to  ensure  greater  professionalism,
transparency and accountability keeping in mind the underlying objective  of
betterment of cricket in India.


43.   Appearing for BCCI Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel,  argued
that although BCCI had received a  questionnaire  and  although  the  office
bearers of the BCCI also had extensive interaction  with  the  Committee  on
several aspects concerning the  subject  matter  of  the  proceedings,  yet,
justice and fairness demanded that  the  Committee,  before  submitting  its
final recommendations to this Court, gave an  opportunity  to  the  BCCI  to
respond to the same.  The recommendations, according to Mr. Venugopal,  came
as a surprise to the BCCI and hence need to be turned down  and  the  matter
remitted back to the Committee for considering the response of BCCI on  each
one of the issues covered by the same.  It was contended that principles  of
natural justice demand that since BCCI was likely  to  be  affected  by  the
acceptance of the recommendations  a  fair  and  reasonable  opportunity  to
oppose such of them as were not acceptable to  was  provided.   Inasmuch  as
the Committee  had  failed  to  follow  that  procedure  and  had  made  its
recommendations unilaterally, the report and  the  recommendations  deserved
to be rejected.



44.   There is, in our opinion, no merit in the submission of  Mr.Venugopal.
 The reasons are not far to seek.  The task assigned  to  the  Committee  in
terms of the order passed by this Court was to examine the  issues  set  out
in the order and make suitable recommendations in  that  regard.   The  task
assigned was, in its very nature inquisitorial in which  the  Committee  was
supposed  to  hear  the  concerned  stakeholders  including  the  BCCI   and
formulate its views on various aspects concerning  the  subject  matter  and
make recommendations considered necessary for a  more  efficient,  objective
and transparent working of the BCCI.  The Committee comprising some  of  the
finest legal minds fully aware of the requirements of law and the  need  for
adopting a fair and reasonable procedure, decided in its wisdom to  serve  a
questionnaire upon  the  stakeholders  soliciting  information,  apart  from
holding several interactive sessions with them and all those who  wished  to
be  heard  in  the  matter  including   representatives   from   the   State
Associations, Journalists, Academicians, Jurists, Public Figures etc.    The
Committee has on the basis of  the  said  interactions  arrived  at  certain
conclusions to which we have made reference at great length in  the  earlier
part of this judgment.   Based  on  the  said  findings  the  Committee  has
recommended certain steps which, in its opinion, are necessary to  usher  in
structural  and  other  reforms  in  the  working  of  the  BCCI.   What  is
significant  is  that  the  Committee  was  not  called  upon  nor  has   it
adjudicated upon  any  right  of  the  applicant  finally.   It  has  simply
enquired  into  the  working  of  the  BCCI,  identified  its   fault,   its
weaknesses, failures and shortcomings and suggested ways and means by  which
the same can be  rectified.   The  report  submitted  by  the  Committee  is
recommendatory in nature and does not ipso facto oblige BCCI to  accept  the
changes suggested therein unless so directed by the Court.  That  being  so,
any grievance based on the alleged violation of the  principles  of  natural
justice and failure of the Committee to put the recommendations proposed  to
be made  before  the  BCCI  for  its  response  did  not,  in  our  opinion,
constitute any substantive or procedural infirmity that  could  vitiate  the
report or the recommendations  or  call  for  a  remand  to  the  Committee.
Principles of natural justice, it is well settled, are  not  codified  rules
of procedure.  Courts have repeatedly declined  to  lay  down  in  a  strait
jacket, their scope and extent. The extent, the manner and  the  application
of these principles depends so much on the nature of jurisdiction  exercised
by the Court or the Tribunal, the nature of the inquiry undertaken  and  the
effect of any such inquiry on the rights and  obligations  of  those  before
it.  The extent of the application of the principles also depends  upon  the
fact situation of a given case.  The legal position is so well settled  that
we do not consider it necessary to burden this judgment  by  elaborating  on
the subject.  Reference to the decisions of this Court in Viveka Nand  Sethi
v.  Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd.  (2005) 5 SCC, 337, S.L.  Kapoor  v.  Jagmohan
(1980) 4 SCC 379,  State  of  Punjab  v.  Jagir  Singh  (2004)  8  SCC  129,
Karnataka SRTC v.  S.G. Kotturappa (2005) 3 SCC 409, Ravi S  Naik  v.  Union
of India (1994) supp. (2) SCC 641 and K.L. Tripathi v. SBI (1984) 1  SCC  43
should suffice.



45.   The fact that the  Committee  was  appointed  by  this  Court,  for  a
specific purpose,  the  fact  that  the  Committee  comprised  distinguished
jurists familiar with the requirements of fairness and objectivity  and  the
need for providing a hearing to any one likely  to  be  affected,  the  fact
that the Committee not only served questionnaire and  heard  all  those  who
wished to be heard and the fact that the report of  the  Committee  was  not
ipso facto binding but was  only  recommendatory,  completely  excludes  any
chance of any prejudice  to  BCCI  nor  has  any  prejudice  otherwise  been
demonstrated. The fact that we have heard BCCI on the  recommendations  made
by the Committee also eliminates the possibility of any prejudice.   At  any
rate there was in  the  facts  and  circumstances  no  legal  or  procedural
requirement  for  the  Committee  to  draw  up  its  recommendations  on   a
provisional basis  and  then  finalise  the  report  after  considering  the
response of the BCCI.  The changes proposed by the Committee remain  in  the
realm of recommendations so long as they are not accepted by this Court  and
before we accept the same with or without modification, we  have  heard  not
only the  BCCI  but  everyone  who  has  come  forward  to  be  heard.   We,
therefore, see no reason to remand the matter nor do we see any  legal  flaw
in the procedure adopted by the Committee.

46.   It was then argued by Mr.  Venugopal  that  although  several  of  the
recommendations made by the Committee were sound and  useful  for  improving
the working of the BCCI and bringing greater  efficiency  and  transparency,
yet, several others were either legally impermissible or  unnecessary  apart
from being impracticable keeping  in  view  the  ground  realities  and  the
historical perspective in which the BCCI  was  founded.  Mr.  Venugopal,  in
particular, assailed the recommendations made by  the  Committee  that  each
State in the country must be represented in the BCCI by an association as  a
full member.  It was urged that while the BCCI was not averse  to  conceding
full membership to an association duly recognized from  each  State  in  the
country to give to the BCCI a  truly  national  character,  the  Committee’s
recommendations that multiple full members from the States  of  Gujarat  and
Maharashtra should be discontinued  and  two  members  each  from  both  the
States reduced to associate membership of BCCI was neither just nor  legally
permissible.  It was submitted that both Maharashtra and Gujarat have  three
full members in the BCCI, not only because the said  members  were  founding
members of the BCCI  but  also  because  they  had,  since  their  inception
promoted cricketing activity in their respective regions and  fielded  teams
to compete in tournaments.  Denying to any one of the said six  members  the
privilege of full membership of the BCCI would, according to Mr.  Venugopal,
violate Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.  So also, the  termination  of
the  membership  of  other  full  members  namely  Association   of   Indian
Universities, Railways  Sports  Promotion  Board,  Services  Sports  Control
Board was also not justified having regard to the fact  that  these  members
had contributed to the development of cricketing activities in the  country,
although some of them did not have any territory nor did they  field  teams.
In support of his submission that the recommended change in the  composition
of  BCCI  would  violate  Article  19(1)(c),   Mr.  Venugopal  placed  heavy
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Damyanti Naranga  v.  The  Union
of India And Others, 1971 (3) SCR 840.



47.   Mr. Kapil Sibal followed by Mr. Shyam Divan,  Mr.  Arvind  Datar,  Mr.
Maninder Singh, Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, counsel appearing for  the  intervening
full members mentioned above, adopted the  submission  of  Mr.Venugopal  and
strenuously argued that the proposed  change  in  the  composition  of  BCCI
would adversely affect the interest of those who had  been  members  of  the
BCCI since the beginning, no matter some of them did not  have  a  territory
or a team to field, while some of them did not receive  any  monetary  grant
from BCCI  and  some  others  had  club  facilities  other  than  cricketing
activities.  It was urged that grant of membership or a vote in the BCCI  to
each State of the country may be a laudable objective  to  ensure  promotion
of cricketing activity even in the States where the  same  has  not,  during
the past 60  years  or  so,  taken  off,  yet  removal  of  those  who  have
contributed to such activities in a big way apart  from  founding  the  BCCI
itself cannot be justified.



48.   Mr. Vikas Mehta appearing for the  respondent-Cricket  Association  of
Bihar and Mr.  Manish  Tiwari  appearing  for  Mr.  Bishan  Singh  Bedi  and
Mr.Kirti Azad and Mr. Rajesh Mahale appearing for U.T  Cricket  Association,
Chandigarh contended that the recommendations  made  by  the  Committee  are
well meaning and could go a long way in reforming the BCCI  structurally  as
well as  professionally.  It  was  urged  that  findings  of  the  Committee
regarding the ills affecting the BCCI have not been questioned by  the  BCCI
or by any intervenor.  If those findings were correct as  they  indeed  are,
the proposed reforms become inevitable and ought to be  introduced  to  save
the game from losing its popularity in the  Indian  sub  continent.  It  was
argued by Mr. Mehta that Article 19(1)(c), is in no  way  violated  in  case
the recommendations made by the Committee in regard to the  reform  and  the
composition of the BCCI are accepted and directed to be implemented.



49.   We have given our anxious consideration to  the  submissions  made  at
the Bar.  We may, before adverting to the  rival  submissions  urged  before
us, point out two distinct aspects that  need  to  be  kept  in  mind  while
addressing the issues raised before us.  The first is that  the  proceedings
that led to the setting-up of the Committee arose out of a  public  interest
petition.  The directions issued by this Court proceeded on a clear  finding
recorded by this Court that even  when  BCCI  is  not  a  state  within  the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it is  amenable  to  the
jurisdiction of the High Court since it discharges public  functions.   That
part of the controversy stands concluded by judgment of this  Court  in  the
earlier round and cannot be reopened no matter Mr. Venugopal made  a  feeble
attempt to do so by making a reference to the  Constitution  Bench  judgment
of this Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v.  Union of India  (2005)  4  SCC  649.
All that we need mention is that while holding BCCI to be  amenable  to  the
writ jurisdiction of the Courts, we have taken note of the pronouncement  of
this Court in  Zee  Telefilms  case  (supra).   This  is  evident  from  the
following passages:

“29. It was then argued that the Board discharges public  duties  which  are
in the nature of State  functions.  Elaborating  on  this  argument  it  was
pointed  out  that  the  Board  selects  a  team  to  represent   India   in
international matches. The Board makes rules that govern the  activities  of
the cricket players, umpires and other persons involved  in  the  activities
of cricket. These, according to the petitioner, are all  in  the  nature  of
State functions and an entity which discharges such functions  can  only  be
an  instrumentality  of  State,  therefore,  the  Board  falls  within   the
definition of  State  for  the  purpose  of Article  12. Assuming  that  the
abovementioned functions of the Board do amount to public  duties  or  State
functions, the question for our consideration is: would this  be  sufficient
to hold the Board to  be  a  State  for  the  purpose  of Article  12. While
considering this aspect of the argument of  the  petitioner,  it  should  be
borne in mind that the State/Union has  not  chosen  the  Board  to  perform
these duties nor has it legally authorised the  Board  to  carry  out  these
functions under any law or agreement. It has chosen to leave the  activities
of cricket to be controlled by  private  bodies  out  of  such  bodies'  own
volition (self- arrogated). In such circumstances when the  actions  of  the
Board are not actions as an authorised representative of the State,  can  it
be said that the Board is discharging State functions? The answer should  be
no. In the absence of any  authorisation,  if  a  private  body  chooses  to
discharge any such function which is not prohibited by law then it would  be
incorrect  to  hold  that  such  action  of  the  body  would  make  it   an
instrumentality of the State. The Union of India has tried  to  make  out  a
case that the Board discharges these  functions  because  of  the  de  facto
recognition granted by it to the Board under the  guidelines  framed  by  it
but the Board has denied the same. In this regard  we  must  hold  that  the
Union of India has failed to prove that there  is  any  recognition  by  the
Union of India under the guidelines framed by  it  and  that  the  Board  is
discharging these functions on its own as an autonomous body.

xxx              xxx              xxx

31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that  the  Board  does  discharge
some duties like the selection of an Indian cricket  team,  controlling  the
activities of the players and others involved in the game of cricket.  These
activities can be said to be akin to public duties or  State  functions  and
if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory  obligation  or
rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief  by  way
of a petition under Article 32. But that does not mean that the violator  of
such right would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a State.  Under
the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for  violation  of  a
right of a citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not available,  an
aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary  course  of  law
or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which  is
much wider than Article 32.”



50.   The second aspect that needs to be borne in mind is that neither  BCCI
nor anyone else has assailed the findings recorded by the Committee  insofar
as the deep rooted malaise that pervades in  the  working  of  the  BCCI  is
concerned.  We have  referred  at  great  length  to  the  findings  of  the
Committee in this regard which findings have not  been  assailed  before  us
either in the affidavits filed or in the course of  arguments  at  the  bar.
That being so, the question is  whether  reforms  which  the  Committee  has
recommended after elaborate deliberations and consideration of all  relevant
factors can be stalled on the ground that the same violate Article  19(1)(c)
of the Constitution or on the  ground  that  such  reforms  will  cause  any
injustice either to the cause  of  the  game  or  to  those  who  have  been
associated in promoting the same.



51.   With the above two aspects in mind, let us  now  examine  whether  the
recommendations of the  Committee  have  the  tendency  to  violate  Article
19(1)(c) or any other provision of the Constitution.

52.   Article 19(1)(c) of  the  Constitution  of  India  guarantees  to  the
citizens  of  this  country  the  right  to  form  associations,  unions  or
cooperative societies.  It reads:

“19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech,  etc.  –  (1)
All citizens shall have the right –

xxx   xxx   xxx

xxx   xxx   xxx



to form associations or unions or cooperative societies



xxx   xxx   xxx

xxx   xxx   xxx

xxx   xxx   xxx

xxx   xxx   xxx”



53.   The right, it is evident from the above, is guaranteed  in  favour  of
citizens  and  citizens  alone.  Recourse  to  Article  19(1)(C)   is   not,
therefore, open to juristic or other  persons  and  entities  who  are  non-
citizens.  Confronted with this position, it was argued  on  behalf  of  the
BCCI and intervening associations that even when the provisions  of  Article
19(1)(c) may not be available to the  State  Cricket  Associations  who  are
members of BCCI  ,  yet  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Committee,  if
accepted, would prejudicially affect the citizens who have come together  to
form such State associations. It was contended that this Court could in  its
discretion  lift  the  veil  to  determine  whether   the   right   of   any
citizen/citizens was affected and grant suitable relief if  the  answer  was
in the affirmative. It was contended that once this Court decides to  do  so
it will find that citizens comprising the  State  Cricket  Associations  are
the ones actually affected by the recommendations in question.



54.   We regret our inability to accept the submission so  vehemently  urged
before  us  by  learned  Counsel  for  the  BCCI  and  the   State   Cricket
Associations.  We say so, firstly because no citizen  has  come  forward  in
the present  proceedings  or  in  the  earlier  round  to  complain  of  the
violation of any fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of  the
Constitution.  Secondly and more importantly because the recommendations  do
not,  in  our  opinion,  affect  the  composition  of  the   State   Cricket
Associations in any manner. Citizens who have  come  together  to  form  the
State Associations continue to associate as before with no change  in  their
internal composition.  If that be so as it indeed is  the  right  guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(c) stands exercised, which exercise  would  continue  to
enjoy  the   protection   of   the   constitutional   guarantee   till   the
Association/Union or co-operative Society, as the case may be, continues  to
exist. What is, however, important is that the right under Article  19(1)(c)
does not extend to guaranting to  the  citizens  the  concomitant  right  to
pursue their goals and  objects  uninhibited  by  any  regulatory  or  other
control.  The legal position in this regard is settled by several  decisions
of this Court to which we may gainfully refer at this stage.

55.   In All India Bank Employees Association  v.  The  National  Industrial
Tribunal (Bank Disputes), Bombay and Ors., AIR 1962 SC  171  a  Constitution
Bench of this Court while explaining the scope of Article  19(1)(c)  drew  a
distinction between the right to form an association/union and the right  to
carry on any such business  or  other  activity  chosen  by  such  union  or
Association.   This  Court  declared  that  while  the  right  to   form   a
union/Association is guaranteed  under  Article  19(1)(c),  the  concomitant
right of the members of the Association/Union would  be  governed  by  other
provisions of Article 19.  This Court held:

“If an association were formed for the purpose of carrying on business,  the
right to form it would be guaranteed by sub-clause  (c)  of  clause  (1)  of
Article 19 subject to any law restricting that right  conforming  to  clause
(4) of Article 19.  As regards its business  activities,  however,  and  the
achievement of the objects for which it  was  brought  into  existence,  its
rights would be those guaranteed by sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of  Article
19 subject to any relevant law on the matter conforming  to  clause  (6)  of
Article 19; while the property which the association acquires  or  possesses
would be protected by sub-clause (f) of clause (1) of Article 19 subject  to
legislation within the limits laid down by clause (5) of Article 19.

While the right to form a union is guaranteed by sub-clause (c),  the  right
of the members of the association to meet would be guaranteed by  sub-clause
(b), their right to move from place to  place  within  India  by  sub-clause
(d), their right to discuss their problems and to propagate their  views  by
sub-clause (a), their right to hold property would  be  that  guaranteed  by
sub-clause (f) and so on – each of these  freedoms  being  subject  to  such
restrictions as might properly be imposed by clauses (2) to (6)  of  Article
19 as might be appropriate in the context.  It is  one  thing  to  interpret
each of the freedoms guaranteed by the several articles in  Part  III  in  a
fair and liberal sense, it is quite another to read  each  guaranteed  right
as involving or  including  concomitant  rights  necessary  to  achieve  the
object which might be supposed to  underlie  the  grant  of  each  of  those
rights….”



56.   In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd.  v.  State  of  Bihar,
AIR 1965 SC 40 this Court reiterated that Article  19  applies  to  citizens
and not persons as was the position with Article  14  of  the  Constitution.
The effect is that the provisions of Article 19 can be claimed  by  citizens
only and not by corporations.  This Court held that  the  fundamental  right
to form an association or Union  cannot  be  coupled  with  the  fundamental
right to carry on any trade or  business.  As  soon  as  citizens  formed  a
company, the right guaranteed to them by Article 19(1)(c)  stood  exercised.
After the incorporation of the company the business carried on by it is  the
business of the corporation and not the business of the citizen.  The  Court
held:

“28. That being the position with regard to the doctrine of the  veil  of  a
corporation and the principle that the said  veil  can  be  lifted  in  some
cases, the question which arises for our decision is; can we lift  the  veil
of the petitioner and say that it is the shareholders who are really  moving
the Court under Article 32, and so, the existence of the legal and  juristic
separate entity of the petitioners as a corporation or as a  company  should
not make the petitions filed by them under Article  32  incompetent.  We  do
not think we can answer this question in  the  affirmative.  No  doubt,  the
complaint made by the petitioners  is  that  their  fundamental  rights  are
infringed and it is a truism to say that this Court as the guardian  of  the
fundamental rights of the citizens will  always  attempt  to  safeguard  the
said fundamental rights; but having regard to the decision of this Court  in
State Trading Corporation  of  India  Ltd.1,  we  do  not  see  how  we  can
legitimately entertain the  petitioners’  plea  in  the  present  petitions,
because if their plea was  upheld,  it  would  really  mean  that  what  the
corporations or the companies cannot achieve directly, can  be  achieved  by
them indirectly by relying upon the doctrine of lifting  the  veil.  If  the
corporations and companies are not citizens, it means that the  Constitution
intended that they should not get the benefit of Article 19. It is no  doubt
suggested  by  the  petitioners  that  though  Article  19  is  confined  to
citizens, the Constitution-makers may have thought that in dealing with  the
claims of corporations to invoke the provisions of Article 19, courts  would
act upon the doctrine of lifting the veil and would not treat  the  attempts
of the corporations in that behalf as falling outside Article 19. We do  not
think this argument is well founded. The effect of confining Article  19  to
citizens as distinguished from  persons  to  whom  other  Articles  like  14
apply, clearly must be that it is only citizens to  whom  the  rights  under
Article 19 are guaranteed. If the legislature intends that  the  benefit  of
Article 19 should be made available to the corporations,  it  would  not  be
difficult for it to adopt a proper measure in that behalf by  enlarging  the
definition  of  “citizen”  prescribed  by  the  Citizenship  Act  passed  by
Parliament by virtue of the powers conferred on it by Articles  10  and  11.
On the other hand, the fact that the Parliament has not chosen to  make  any
such provision indicates that it was not  the  intention  of  Parliament  to
treat corporations as citizens. Therefore, it seems to us that  in  view  of
the decision of this Court in the  case  of  State  Trading  Corporation  of
India Ltd.1, the petitioners cannot be heard to any that their  shareholders
should be allowed to file the present  petitions  on  the  ground  that,  in
substance,  the  corporations  and   companies   are   nothing   more   than
associations  of  shareholders  and  members  thereof.   In   our   opinion,
therefore, the argument that in the present petition we would  be  justified
in lifting the veil cannot be sustained.

29. Mr Palkhivala sought to draw  a  distinction  between  the  right  of  a
citizen to carry on trade or  business  which  is  contemplated  by  Article
l9(1)(g) from his right to  form  associations  or  unions  contemplated  by
Article l9(1)(c). He argued that Article 19(1)(c) enables  the  citizens  to
choose their instruments or agents for carrying on the business which it  is
their fundamental right to  carry  on.  If  citizens  decide  to  set  up  a
corporation or a company as their agent  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on
trade or business, that is  a  right  which  is  guaranteed  to  them  under
Article 19(1)(c). Basing himself on this distinction between the two  rights
guaranteed by Article l9(1)(g) and (c) respectively, Mr Palkhivala  somewhat
ingeniously contended that we should not hesitate to lift the veil,  because
by looking at the substance of the matter, we would really be giving  effect
to the two fundamental rights  guaranteed  by  Article  l9(l).  We  are  not
impressed by  this  argument  either.  The  fundamental  right  to  form  an
association cannot in this manner be coupled with the fundamental  right  to
carry on any trade or business. As has been held by this Court in  all-India
Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial  Tribunal,  the  argument
which is thus attractively presented  before  us  overlooks  the  fact  that
Article 19, as contrasted with certain other articles like Articles  26,  29
and 30 guarantees rights to the citizens as such,  and  associations  cannot
lay claim to the fundamental rights guaranteed by  that  article  solely  on
the basis of their being an aggregation of citizens, that  is  to  say,  the
right of the citizens composing the body. The respective  rights  guaranteed
by Article 19(1) cannot be combined as suggested by Mr Palkhivala, but  must
be asserted each in its own way and within its own limits; the sweep of  the
several rights is no doubt wide, but the combination of  any  of  those  two
rights would not justify a claim such as is made by  Mr  Palkhivala  in  the
present petitions. As soon as citizens form a company the  right  guaranteed
to them by Article l9(l)(c) has been exercised and  no  restraint  has  been
placed on that right and no infringement of  that  right  is  made.  Once  a
company or a corporation is formed, the business which is carried on by  the
said company or corporation is the business of the  company  or  corporation
and is not the business of the citizens who get the company  or  corporation
formed or incorporated, and the rights of  the  incorporated  body  must  be
judged on that footing and cannot be judged on the assumption that they  are
the rights attributable to the business of individual  citizens.  Therefore,
we are satisfied that the argument based on the distinction between the  two
rights guaranteed by Article l9(l)(c)  and  (g)  and  the  effect  of  their
combination cannot take the petitioners’ case very far  when  they  seek  to
invoke the doctrine that the veil of the corporation should be lifted.  That
is why we have come to the  conclusion  that  the  petitions  filed  by  the
petitioners are incompetent under Article 32, even though in each  of  these
petitions one or two of the shareholders of  the  petitioning  companies  or
corporation have joined.”
                               (emphasis supplied)



57.   In D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, 1971 (2) SCC 269 this Court  was
examining the  validity  of  a  legislation  that  provided  for  compulsory
affiliation  of  religious  or  linguistic  minority  institutions  to   the
University.   It  was  contended  that   the   requirement   of   compulsory
affiliation was in violation  of  their  right  of  freedom  of  association
guaranteed under Article  19(1)(c).   This  court,  however,  rejected  that
contention  and  held  that  the  notification  providing   for   compulsory
affiliation with the University did not in any manner interfere  or  attempt
to interfere with the  petitioners’  right  to  form  an  association  under
Article 19(1)(c).   This Court said :

“29. It is contended that the compulsory affiliation of the  petitioners  to
the University affects their fundamental right of freedom of association  as
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c), therefore the notification under  Section
5(3) affiliating them to the University is bad. It is also urged that  since
the words “associated with and admitted  to  any  privileges”  are  used  in
Section 5 of the Act,  it  would  mean  that  petitioners  are  compulsorily
formed into an Association with the University. This contention  however  is
countered by the respondents who point out that the freedom  of  association
under Article 19(1)(c) implies association between  citizens  while  in  the
case of the petitioners what is sought to  be  affected  is  an  affiliation
with the University which is a corporate body.

30. The right to form an association implies that  several  individuals  get
together and form voluntarily an association with a common  aim,  legitimate
purpose and having a community of interests. It was sought to  be  suggested
that the compulsory affiliation with the University  affects  the  aims  and
objects of the association, as such its freedom is infringed.  There  is  in
our view a fallacy in this argument which  on  earlier  occasions  had  also
been  repelled.  In  All  India  Bank  Employees  Association  v.   National
Industrial Tribunal,  it  was  observed  that  the  right  guaranteed  under
Article 19(1)(c) does not  carry  with  it  a  concomitant  right  that  the
Associations shall achieve their object such that any interference  in  such
achievement by  any  law  would  be  unconstitutional  unless  it  could  be
justified under Article 19(4) as being in the interests of public  order  or
morality. The right  under  Article  19(1)(c)  extends  inter  alia  to  the
formation of an Association or Union.”


58.   In Smt. Damyanti Naranga v. the Union of India Ors., 1971 (1) SCC  678
heavy reliance whereupon was placed by Mr. Venugopal,  also  a  Constitution
Bench of this Court clearly held that  the  right  to  form  an  association
implied that the person forming  the  association/Union  had  the  right  to
continue to be associated with only those whom  they  voluntarily  admit  in
the Association.  This Court declared that the right under Article  19(1)(c)
was not confined to the initial stage of forming of an association  for  any
such restricted interpretation of that  provision  would  render  the  right
meaningless in a situation where no sooner the association is formed, a  law
is passed interfering with its composition so that  the  association  formed
may not be able to function at all.  This Court, in  that  view,  held  that
the right will be rendered ineffective until  it  is  held  to  include  the
right to continue the association/union with its composition as  voluntarily
agreed upon by the persons forming the  association.   This  Court  affirmed
the view taken in its earlier decision in O.K. Ghosh  and  another  v.  E.X.
Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812, and observed:

“6. It was argued that the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) is  only  to
form an association and, consequently, any regulation of the affairs of  the
Association, after it has been formed, will not amount to a breach  of  that
right. It is true that it has  been  held  by  this  Court  that,  after  an
Association has been formed and the right under Article  19(1)(c)  has  been
exercised by the members forming it, they have no right to  claim  that  its
activities must also be permitted to  be  carried  on  in  the  manner  they
desire. Those cases are, however, inapplicable to the present case. The  Act
does not merely regulate the administration of the affairs of  the  Society;
what it does is to alter the composition of the Society itself  as  we  have
indicated above. The result of  this  change  in  composition  is  that  the
members, who voluntarily formed the Association, are now  compelled  to  act
in that Association with other members who have been imposed as  members  by
the Act and  in  whose  admission  to  membership  they  had  no  say.  Such
alteration in the composition of the Association itself  clearly  interferes
with the right to continue to function as members of the  Association  which
was voluntarily formed by the  original  founders.  The  right  to  form  an
association, in our opinion, necessarily implies that  the  persons  forming
the Association have also the right to continue to be associated  with  only
those whom they voluntarily admit in the  Association.  Any  law,  by  which
members are introduced in  the  voluntary  Association  without  any  option
being given to the members to keep them out, or any  law  which  takes  away
the membership of those who have  voluntarily  joined  it,  will  be  a  law
violating the right to form  an  association.  If  we  were  to  accept  the
submission that the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) is confined to  the
initial stage of forming an Association and does not protect  the  right  to
continue the Association with the membership either chosen by  the  founders
or regulated by rules made by the Association itself,  the  right  would  be
meaningless because, as soon as an Association  is  formed,  a  law  may  be
passed interfering with its composition, so that the Association formed  may
not be able to function at all. The right can be effective  only  if  it  is
held to include within it the right to continue  the  Association  with  its
composition  as  voluntarily  agreed  upon  by  the  persons   forming   the
Association….”


59.   Reference may also be made to a very recent decision of this Court  in
Dharam Dutt and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 712. That was  a
case where the constitutional  validity  of  the  Indian  Council  of  World
Affairs Ordinance, 2001 was  under  challenge  in  a  petition  filed  under
Article 32 of  the  Constitution.  One  of  the  issues  that  came  up  for
consideration was whether the  legislation  violated  the  right  guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(c).  Relying upon the  decisions  in  Maneka  Gandhi  v.
Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; All India Bank Employees’  Association  v.
National Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1962  SC  171  and;  Damyanti  Naranga  v.
Union of India, 1971 (1) SCC 678  this  Court  held  that  the  right  under
Article 19(1)(c) does not include the right of the association or  union  so
formed to achieve  its  objective  whether  of  running  an  institution  or
otherwise. The Court said:

“From a reading of the two decisions,  namely,  Smt.  Maneka  Gandhi’s  case
(supra), (seven-Judges Bench) and All  India  Bank  Employees  Association’s
case (supra), (five-Judges Bench), the following principles emerge :  (i)  a
right to form associations or unions does not include within its  ken  as  a
fundamental right a right to form associations or  unions  for  achieving  a
particular object or running a particular  institution,  the  same  being  a
concomitant or concomitant to a concomitant of a fundamental right, but  not
the fundamental right itself. The associations or unions of citizens  cannot
further claim as a fundamental right that it must also be  able  to  achieve
the purpose for which it has come into existence so  that  any  interference
with such achievement by law shall  be  unconstitutional,  unless  the  same
could be justified under Article 19(4) as being  a  restriction  imposed  in
the interest of public order or morality; (ii) A right to form  associations
guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(c) does not imply the fulfillment  of  every
object of an  association  as  it  would  be  contradictory  to  the  scheme
underlying the  text  and  the  frame  of  the  several  fundamental  rights
guaranteed by Part III and particularly by  the  scheme  of  the  guarantees
conferred by sub-clauses (a) to (g) of  clause  (1)  of  Article  19;  (iii)
While right to form an association is to be tested by reference  to  Article
19(1)(c) and the validity of restriction thereon  by  reference  to  Article
19(4), once the individual citizens have formed an association and carry  on
some activity, the validity of legislation  restricting  the  activities  of
the association shall have to be judged by  reference  to  Article  19(1)(g)
read with 19(6). A restriction on the activities of the association  is  not
a  restriction  on  the  activities  of  the  individual  citizens   forming
membership of the association;  and  (iv)  A  perusal  of  Article  19  with
certain other Articles like 26, 29  and  30  shows  that  while  Article  19
grants rights to the citizens as such, the associations  can  lay  claim  to
the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article  19  solely  on  the  basis  of
there being an aggregation of citizens, i.e., the  rights  of  the  citizens
composing the body. As the stream  can  rise  no  higher  than  the  source,
associations of citizens cannot lay claim to rights not open to citizens  or
claim freedom from restrictions to  which  the  citizens  composing  it  are
subject.”

                                                         (emphasis supplied)



60.   There is, in the light of the above authoritative  pronouncements,  no
room for any doubt that the right guaranteed under Article  19(1)(c)  cannot
be claimed by an association or  union  or  a  co-operative  Society  as  is
sought to be done in the case at hand,  even  when  the  right  to  form  an
association or  union  or  cooperative  society  extends  to  the  continued
existence of such association or  union  or  cooperative  society  with  its
original voluntary composition.  But the right does not extend so far as  to
include the right of any such association or union  or  cooperative  society
to achieve its  objects  or  to  conduct  its  business  unhindered  by  any
regulatory  or  other  control.   Anything  beyond  the  protection  of  the
original composition of the association  or  union  or  cooperative  society
would fall outside Article 19(1)(C) and shall be governed by  other  clauses
of  Article  19  of  the  Constitution.  For  instance,  the  right  of  the
association or union or cooperative  society  to  conduct  its  business  or
pursue its objects shall be regulated under Article 19(1)(g) read with  sub-
Article (6) of  the  Constitution.   So  also,  the  right  to  move  freely
throughout the territory of India shall  be  governed  by  Article  19(1)(d)
read with sub-Article 5 of the Constitution.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  so
long as the initial voluntary composition of the State Cricket  Associations
who are complaining of the breach of  their  right  under  Article  19(1)(c)
remains unaffected, there is no violation of what is guaranteed  by  Article
19(1)(c).



61.   Seen in the backdrop of the above, the  recommendations  made  by  the
Committee in the instant do not interfere with or alter the  composition  of
the State Associations.  Individual citizens who came together to  form  the
State Associations have not been asked to discontinue their association  nor
do the recommendations impose upon their members an obligation to  associate
with others with whom they do not wish to  associate.   Composition  of  the
State Cricket Associations remain unaffected,  and  so  does  the  right  of
those forming such Associations under Article 19(1)(c). That being  so,  the
grievance sought to be made on behalf of citizens who have formed the  State
Associations does not stand scrutiny  no  matter  none  of  those  on  whose
behalf the argument is advanced is  before  this  Court  to  make  any  such
grievance.  We have, in the light of the above, no difficulty  in  rejecting
the first limb of the submissions  made  by  learned  counsel  opposing  the
recommendation  of  the  committee  that  BCCI  shall   have   the   Cricket
Association from each State as a full member.

62.    That  brings  us  to  the  question  whether  “One  State  One  vote”
recommended by the Committee suffers  from  any  legal  or  other  infirmity
sufficient for this Court to reject the same.  The  recommendation  made  by
the Committee has a two-fold impact on  the  current  state  of  affairs  in
BCCI. The first is the reduction of some of the Associations and Clubs  from
the full membership of BCCI to the status of Associate  Members.  The  other
aspect of the recommendation is the reduction of the full membership  of  at
least four existing full members to the status  of  associate  members  from
the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat.



63.   In the first category, fall five full members whose membership  should
as per the recommendation get converted to  associate  membership.  In  this
category  fall  Railways  Sports  Promotion  Board,  Association  of  Indian
Universities,  Services  Sports  Control  Board,   National   Cricket   Club
(Kolkata) and Cricket Club of India (Bombay). The Committee has  recommended
that these clubs and associations need not be continued as full  members  as
they do not represent any geographical territory. Two of  the  clubs  namely
Cricket Club of India and National Cricket Club do not even field  teams  in
competitive cricket. These two clubs also happen to be  recreational  clubs.
The other three clubs  mentioned  above  however  field  teams  but  do  not
receive any monetary assistance from  BCCI.  It  was  contended  by  learned
counsel appearing for these  clubs  that  the  recommendation  made  by  the
Committee based entirely on the fact that they do not represent a  territory
does not do full justice to them while recommending deletion of  their  full
membership from BCCI. It was submitted that even when  these  clubs  do  not
represent any geographical area and some of them even do  not  field  teams,
they should be continued as full members  keeping  in  view  the  historical
background leading to the formation of  BCCI.   We  see  no  merit  in  that
contention nor do we see any reason  to  disagree  with  the  recommendation
made by the committee, who has upon a thorough consideration  of  all  facts
and circumstances relevant to the  working  of  the  BCCI,  recommended  the
conversion of the clubs and  associations  without  a  territory  from  full
members to associate members. This is a measure which has  been  recommended
with  a  view  to  structurally  streamlining  the  BCCI  to  make  it  more
responsive and accountable having regard  to  the  aspiration  of  different
regions for an equal opportunity to participate in the growth and  promotion
of the game in the country. The  fact  that  clubs  including  the  Railways
Sports Promotion Board, Association  of  Indian  Universities  and  Services
Sports Control Board do not represent any region nor  do  they  receive  any
monetary benefit is, in our view, a good enough reason for converting  their
full membership to  associate  membership.  The  conversion  notwithstanding
they shall continue to be associated with the growth and  promotion  of  the
game, the right to vote remaining confined  to  full  members,  representing
definite geographical regions or territories.  The  recommendation  made  by
the committee regarding the conversion of the status of the above  mentioned
clubs and associations are, therefore, sound and are hereby accepted.



64.   Coming to the second aspect of “One State One Vote”, it was argued  by
learned counsel appearing for the  intervening  clubs  from  the  States  of
Maharashtra and Gujarat that the six clubs/associations three each from  the
two  States   viz.   Mumbai   Cricket   Association,   Maharashtra   Cricket
Association, Vidarbha  Cricket  Association,  Gujarat  Cricket  Association,
Baroda cricket Association  and  Saurashtra  Cricket  Association  not  only
represent a definite territory and participate  in  competitive  cricket  by
fielding teams but have contributed to the development of the game in  their
regions. It was submitted that the recommendations  made  by  the  committee
that BCCI should choose one of the clubs to represent the entire  state  was
fraught with difficulty and ignored the historical perspective and the  fact
that the these clubs had made  substantial contribution to  the  development
and promotion of cricket in this country.  It  was,  therefore,  urged  that
reducing the role of four out of the  six  clubs  from  full  membership  to
associate membership was not a sound proposition and deserved to  be  turned
down and the  associations  allowed  to  continue  their  position  as  full
members.



65.   The argument advanced  by  the  intervenor  clubs  cannot  be  lightly
brushed  aside.  It  is  not  disputed  that  three  different  regions  are
represented by three distinct Associations both in  the  States  of  Gujarat
and Maharashtra. This position has continued to exist  from  the  inception.
Some of the clubs/associations, if not  all  are  the  founding  members  of
BCCI. That being so, a balance has to be struck with historical reality  and
the need for adopting a pragmatic, uniform and principled approach aimed  at
reforming and rationalizing BCCI’s structural  edifice.  The  recommendation
made by the Committee to the extent it provides for one vote for each  state
is unexceptionable nor should there be any compromise with what is  proposed
as a reformative measure. Even so the  question  is  whether  BCCI,  in  the
peculiar situation prevalent in these  two  states,  is  in  a  position  to
recognize one of the three Associations representing  different  territories
in those two States as the  one  that  would  represent  the  entire  State.
Learned Counsel for the intervenors and so also Mr.  Venugopal  counsel  for
BCCI are, in our opinion,  justified  in  contending  that  the  process  of
recognizing one out  of  three  associations  representing  three  different
regions in those two states is fraught with several difficulties  and  would
result  in  long  drawn  litigation  and  frustration  for  the  players  in
particular and cricket lovers in general. What then is the way out  of  this
conundrum. We had in the course of the hearing  asked  learned  counsel  for
the parties, if it would be possible for the three associations to sync  and
unify  their  associations  into  a  single  entity.   There  were   serious
reservations expressed on that front and rightly so as each  association  is
entitled today to field a team  and  receive  monetary  assistance.  In  the
process of  unification,  the  prospects  of  budding  cricketers  of  these
regions would go down substantially. That being so, the only reasonable  and
rational answer to the problem within the broad principle of One  State  One
Vote would be to allow the full membership  of  BCCI  to  rotate  among  the
three clubs on an annual basis.  During the period one of  the  associations
would exercise rights and  privileges  of  a  full  member,  the  other  two
associations would  act  as  associate  members  of  BCCI.  This  rotational
arrangement would give each member a right  to  vote  at  its  turn  without
violating the broader principle of one State one  vote  recommended  by  the
Committee.  This would also respect the historical  aspect  in  which  these
associations grew to promote the game and form  BCCI  as  a  national  body.
Needless to say that the right of the association to field teams  as  before
will remain unaffected subject to any changes that  BCCI  may  make  in  its
wisdom over a period of time. BCCI  shall,  however,  decide  the  order  in
which the membership will rotate among the three associations in  these  two
states. We make it clear that  this  arrangement  of  rotational  membership
shall continue till such time the clubs/Associations come together  to  form
a single entity, if such a unification was to ever become a reality.



66.   It was next argued by Mr. Venugopal and counsel appearing for some  of
the interveners including Mr.  Sampath,  counsel  for  the  Karnataka  State
Cricket Association that the recommendation made by the Lodha  Committee  as
to the upper age limit of  any  office  bearer  is  neither  reasonable  nor
conducive to the development and promotion of the game in this  country.  It
was submitted that  some  of  the  office  bearers  continue  to  contribute
immensely to the development and promotion of cricket even though they  have
crossed the recommended upper age limit of 70  years.   For  instance,  Shri
Niranjan Shah, applicant in Interlocutory Application No.24 is more than  70
years old but has  held  the  office  of  Secretary  of  Saurashtra  Cricket
Association for more than four decades.   This,  according  to  the  learned
counsel, shows that age had nothing to do with the capacity  of  the  person
to contribute to the promotion of the game.



67.    Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  interveners  who  support  the
recommendations of the Committee, on  the  other  hand,  argued  that  those
playing competitive cricket are in the age group of 18  to  35  years  which
means that anyone who has played the game or who is actively connected  with
the game gets nearly 35 years to continue his active  association  with  the
game even after he has retired from competitive  cricket  which  is  a  long
enough period for anyone to contribute to the game  and  its  promotion.  It
was also contended that the Government  of  India,  have,  in  their  wisdom
prescribed the upper age limit  of  70  years  for  office  bearers  of  the
National Sports Federations in terms  of  the  National  Sports  Development
Code of India, 2011. The Sporting fraternity has  accepted  the  same  as  a
reasonable upper age limit  for  anyone  to  hold  office  in  any  Sporting
Federation. There is, in that view, nothing wrong with  the  recommendations
of the Committee that those aspiring to hold any office in the  BCCI  or  in
the State Associations ought to be less than 70 years old.



68.   There is no denying the fact  that  Cricketers  who  play  competitive
cricket generally fall in the age group of 18  to  35  years.  This  implies
that even after retirement from active cricket anyone who has the  potential
to contribute to the game can do so for over three decades till  he  attains
the age of 70 years. The upper age limit recommended by the Lodha  Committee
is not, therefore, unreasonable or irrational by any standard.  That  apart,
as rightly pointed out by the counsel  supporting  the  recommendation,  the
Government of India have in the National Sports Development Code  of  India,
2011,  inter  alia,  stipulated  that  the  President,  Secretary  and   the
Treasurer of any recognized National Sports Federation including the  Indian
Olympic Association (IOA) shall cease to hold that  post  on  attaining  the
age of 70 years. The upper age limit of  70  years  is  not,  therefore,  an
unusual or unacceptable norm so as to  warrant  our  interference  with  the
same. The recommendation made by the Lodha  Committee  regarding  upper  age
limit for office bearers is accordingly accepted.



69.   Mr.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for BCCI and counsel for  some
of the interveners  opposing  the  recommendations  of  the  Committee  also
assailed  the  Committee’s  recommendation  that  Ministers  and  Government
Officials should be ineligible for any post in State Associations or in  the
BCCI.  It was contended that the restrictions sought to  be  placed  on  the
Ministers and Government Servants are unreasonable. It  was  contended  that
past  experience  of  the  BCCI  has  shown  that  Government  Servants  and
Ministers are able  Administrators  whose  association  with  BCCI  and  the
Associations has resulted in substantial benefit to BCCI in  the  management
of its affairs. It was contended that office bearers in  BCCI  serve  in  an
honorary capacity and without any remuneration for  their  services,  except
that travel, lodging and boarding arrangements are  taken  care  of  by  the
BCCI.  It was also contended that the Government of India  has  been,  as  a
matter of policy, encouraging formation of  Sporting  Associations  so  that
its employees are attracted towards sporting  activities  and  promotion  of
sports  and  development  of  sports  related  infrastructure.  Also   under
challenge is the recommendation made by the  Committee  that  those  holding
office in the State Associations shall  not  be  eligible  for  holding  any
office in  BCCI  and  vice  versa.  It  was  contended  that  administrative
experience acquired by anyone in the State Associations  is  useful  to  the
BCCI which need not be lost by stipulating  a  disqualification  recommended
by the Committee.



70.   Learned counsel for the interveners  supporting  the  recommendations,
on the other hand, argued that the recommendations were well considered  and
meaningful and in the interest of the game of cricket in this  country.   It
was contended that political bigwigs need to be kept away from the  sporting
arena not only because the presence of Ministers and Civil  Servants  brings
several considerations not conducive to the promotion of the game,  but,  at
times, results in creation of vested interests, groupism and rivalries  that
harm the game far more than helping it. The  fact  that  the  Ministers  and
Civil Servants have been helpful in promoting the game in the past does  not
mean that  the  game  would  cease  to  get  their  patronage  if  they  are
disqualified from holding any office in the State Associations or the  BCCI.
Whatever the legitimate sporting patronage is required for  the  game  would
certainly come from the concerned supporters  regardless  whether  they  are
Ministers, Civil Servants  or  office  bearers.   The  contention  urged  on
behalf of the BCCI that the restriction placed on the Ministers  and  Public
Servants holding office would, in any manner, damage the cause of  the  game
is, therefore, without any basis.



71.   The Lodha Committee has, in its meetings, held  extensive  interactive
sessions and  deliberations  with  a  cross  section  of  stakeholders.  The
recommendations made by the Committee are based  on  the  impressions  which
the Committee has gathered from such interactions and deliberations. In  the
ordinary course and in the absence of any  patent  perversity  in  what  has
been recommended by the Committee, this Court would be slow in  interfering,
especially when the Committee has  recommended  comprehensive  restructuring
of the management at different  levels  by  proposing  modification  of  the
relevant rules and regulations.  The Committee has in its wisdom found  that
the holding of office by the Ministers  and  Civil  Servants  in  the  State
Associations or in the BCCI is not conducive to the health and promotion  of
the game.  The Committee has taken the view that the game  would  be  better
managed, promoted and  developed  if  politicians  and  civil  servants  who
otherwise occupy positions of responsibility in  the  Government  that  call
for  their  complete  and  unstinted  attention  and  commitment  are   made
ineligible from holding any post in the State associations or the BCCI.  The
Committee has while making that recommendation observed:

“… … … Any elected Councillor shall stand automatically  disqualified  after
nine years as  an  office  bearer,  and  shall  also  be  disqualified  from
contesting or holding the post if he has completed the age of 70  years,  is
charged under the penal law, is  declared  to  be  of  unsound  mind,  is  a
Minister or government servant or holds any post of another sports  body  in
the country.”



xxx xxx      xxx xxx

xxx   xxx    xxx xxx



b.  Posts & Tenures

… … …The lack of any qualifications or disqualifications also  ensures  that
those with full time occupations superficially involve  themselves,  thereby
compromising their commitment to the association and the  game  of  cricket.
Several public servants hold lead  positions  in  State  Associations  which
take a substantial toll on both sets of their respective obligations to  the
public.”





72.   In light of the above we see no compelling reason  for  us  to  reject
the recommendation which disqualifies Ministers  and  Public  Servants  from
holding offices in the State Associations or BCCI.  The argument that  since
ministerial and bureaucratic support and patronage has helped  the  BCCI  in
running its affairs in the past they should be  allowed  to  continue,  lest
the game suffers, has not impressed us.  We  do  not  think  that  the  game
flourishes in this country because  any  minister  or  civil  servant  holds
office in the State Associations or BCCI.  We also do  not  find  any  basis
for the argument that unless the ministers and civil  servants  are  allowed
to hold office in the State Association or in the BCCI they will  refuse  to
do what is legitimately due to the game for its development  and  promotion.
Nothing which is not due to the game or is not legitimate need  be  done  by
any Minister or Civil Servant. But we have no manner of doubt that  what  is
legitimately due to the game will not be denied to the game  merely  because
Ministers or Civil Servants do not happen to be office bearers for ought  we
know that there may be an overwhelming number of Ministers  and  Bureaucrats
who are passionate about the game and would like to do  everything  that  is
legally permissible and reasonably possible within the four corners  of  the
law even without holding any office in the BCCI or the  State  Associations.
The contention that favours which the  BCCI  receives  will  disappear  just
because a Minister or Civil Servant is not an office  bearer  in  the  State
Association or BCCI has no real basis to commend itself  to  us.   So  also,
the contention that it should be permissible to hold  office  simultaneously
in BCCI and the State Association  has  not  commended  itself  to  us.  The
Committee has while recommending abolition of dual posts observed:

g. Dual posts

Strangely, while conflict of interest issues  have  been  at  the  heart  of
recent controversies, virtually all office bearers of the BCCI  continue  to
be office bearers in their respective State Associations at the  same  time.
Presidents and Secretaries of State Associations are to discharge  functions
with the primary interest of the State in mind, but as BCCI office  bearers,
these interests would have to be subordinated to that of national  interest.
Often, with powers centred on an office bearer,  that  individual  has  been
found to appoint his  State  associates  to  critical  posts  in  the  BCCI,
thereby creating an imbalance.



73.   There is nothing irrational about the view  taken  by  the  Committee.
The argument that individuals should be eligible to hold two posts one  each
in the State Association and the BCCI does not stand scrutiny in  the  light
of the reasons given by the Committee which do not, in our  opinion,  suffer
from any perversity to call for our interference.

74.   It was next contended on behalf of the BCCI that  the  recommendations
made by the Committee for inclusion of a nominee of the  Accountant  General
of the State in the Governing Body of the State Associations and  a  nominee
of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (C&AG) as Member of  the  Apex
Council  in  BCCI  were  both  unacceptable  to   BCCI   being   unnecessary
inflictions that were likely to result in the derecognition of the  BCCI  by
the ICC.   It  was  submitted  that  in  terms  of  Article  2.9(b)  of  the
Memorandum of Association  and  Articles  of  Association  of  the  ICC  any
interference by the Government in the administration of  the  Cricket  by  a
member would render the latter liable  to  be  suspended  and  derecognized.
Induction of the nominee of the Accountant General in the State  Association
and nominee of a C&AG in the Apex Council of the BCCI brings in  an  element
of interference by the Government which would according to the  counsel  for
BCCI lead to suspension/derecognition of the BCCI.  Any such induction  was,
therefore, not  in  the  interest  of  the  game  of  cricket  or  otherwise
desirable keeping in view the fact that the BCCI cannot afford  to  run  the
risk of being derecognized or suspended by the ICC.

75.   The Lodha Committee has, while dealing with the need for  transparency
and oversight, referred to the grievance made by the stakeholders  that  the
BCCI  was  neither  fair  nor  transparent  and  those  who   seek   greater
information are either rebuffed by the Board or  won  over  by  enticements.
The Committee has noticed that the state of affairs prevailing in  BCCI  and
the expenses incurred  by  it  call  for  better  financial  management  and
financial prudence.  The Committee has observed:

“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.

                               xxx   xxx   xxx

                               xxx   xxx   xxx

The Committee also believes that the Auditor  be  tasked  not  only  with  a
financial analysis, but also specifically  carry  out  a  performance  audit
(Compliance  Report)  to  determine  whether  the  State  associations  have
actually expended their grants towards the development of the game and  mark
them on a report card which will be  utilized  to  determine  the  due  they
deserve the following year. This oversight also needs to consider  the  high
and unreasonable expenditures by the Board on  various  heads,  which  would
have to be limited and streamlined.”



76.   While dealing with the question of governance in Chapter  Two  of  the
Report the Committee has recommended a Nine-Member Body as the Apex  Council
out of whom five shall be elected office bearers  of  the  BCCI  while  four
shall be Councillors one of them to be nominated by the C&AG.   The  nominee
of C&AG, shall, in the opinion  of  the  Committee  bring  transparency  and
oversight in monitoring the finances of the BCCI.  It is in that  background
that   the   Committee   has   recommended   in   the   draft   Rules    and
Regulations/Memorandum  of  Association  the  composition   of   the   State
Associations and the BCCI to include a nominee of the Accountant General  of
the State in the case of State Associations and nominee of  C&AG  as  Member
of the Apex Council in the case of the BCCI.  It is evident from  a  careful
reading of the Report that  the  object  underlying  the  induction  of  the
nominees of the Accountant General of the State and the  C&AG  is  to  bring
transparency  and  financial  oversight  into  the  affairs  of  the   State
Associations and the BCCI. No one can possibly argue that the object  sought
to be achieved by the proposed nominations  is  not  laudable  or  at  least
desirable. Transparency and  financial  discipline  and  accountability  are
fundamental values to which any authority discharging public functions  must
be committed to.  To that extent the BCCI has not faulted  the  report  made
by  the  Committee.   What  is  all  the  same   contended   is   that   the
recommendation if accepted may result in the suspension of  the  recognition
of the BCCI as it will  be  seen  by  the  ICC  as  Government  interference
contrary to Article 2.9(B) of the ICC Rules, which reads as under:

“Where a government  interferes  in  the  administration  of  cricket  by  a
Member, including but not limited to interference  in  operational  matters,
the selection and  management  of  teams,  the  appointment  of  coaches  or
support personnel or the activities of a Member, the Executive  Board  shall
have the power to suspend or refuse to recognize  that  Member,  subject  to
the provisions of Article 2.7.”



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.

78.   That brings us to the recommendation made by the  Committee  regarding
the formation of a Players’ Association.  To the extent  the  recommendation
provides for establishment of a Players’ Association neither  the  BCCI  nor
any other association who has intervened  has  found  fault  with  the  view
taken by the Committee.  What has come under criticism by the BCCI  and  its
supporting associations is  the  financial  assistance  which  the  BCCI  is
required to give to such an association.  On  behalf  of  the  BCCI  it  was
contended that cricket players can indeed form  an  association  which  they
are in any case entitled to form, but that  exercise  need  not  be  at  the
expense of the BCCI.   The  recommendation  for  financial  support  to  the
association is thus all that has been faulted  by  the  BCCI.  It  was  also
contended that there was no need for providing any  representation  for  the
Association in the Apex Council of the BCCI having regard to the  fact  that
some  of  the  cricketers  had  in  the  past  held  offices  in  the  State
Associations and in the BCCI by recourse to the democratic process,  without
any such reservation.

79.   There are three distinct aspects of the  recommendation  in  question.
One relates to formation of the Association itself; the second  touches  the
financial support which the BCCI must provide to the  Association  and;  the
third deals with the representation given to the  Association  in  the  Apex
Council.  Formation of the Association, as noticed  earlier,  is  not  under
challenge and rightly so for cricket players have  a  fundamental  right  to
form an association even independent of the recommendation. The question  is
whether the association needs to be financially supported by the BCCI.   The
Committee has recommended such financial support but has  stopped  short  of
specifying the extent of such support.  It would, therefore,  be  reasonable
to presume that the extent of financial support which  the  association  may
be given is left to the discretion of the BCCI.  If that be so,  we  do  not
see any merit in the objection raised by the BCCI  that  such  support  need
not be given or would unduly burden the BCCI.   An  association  of  cricket
players would doubtless  give  to  the  cricketing  community  not  only  an
opportunity to contribute to the promotion  of  the  game  but  a  sense  of
participation also so very important  for  the  promotion  of  a  game  that
brings so much  joy  and  feelings  of  nationalism  among  our  countrymen.
Financial support, to the extent possible, having regard  to  the  resources
available with the  BCCI  and  its  financial  commitments  in  other  areas
relevant  to  the  game  is  not  therefore  an  unacceptable   idea.    The
recommendation  requiring  financial  support  to  the  players  association
cannot therefore be rejected especially when the extent of such  support  is
left to the BCCI to  be  decided  on  a  fair  and  objective  view  of  its
financial resources and commitments.



80.   The third dimension of the recommendation touching the  representation
given to the association also does not call for any  interference.  Players’
Association,  it  is  obvious,  would  represent  a  very  significant   and
important segment of the stakeholders in the game.  Those  who  have  played
the game and are, therefore, better equipped to understand its nuances,  its
challenges and concerns relevant to its development and promotion cannot  be
left out from the management. The Committee has  recommended  two  positions
in the Apex Council as Councillors one of whom must be  a  female.   Keeping
in  view  the  numerical  strength  of  the  Apex  Council,   two   nominees
representing the Players’ Association will not unfavorably  tilt  the  power
balance within the Apex Council nor bring in any undesirable  or  extraneous
element into the management of the BCCI.  We have, therefore, no  hesitation
in rejecting the argument against the recommendation.

81.   That leaves us with three other recommendations of  the  Committee  to
which we may advert at this stage.  Of these,  two  recommendations  are  in
the nature of an appeal  to  the  Parliament  to  enact  suitable  statutory
provisions which the Committee considers essential in public interest.   The
first of these recommendations relates to the BCCI being under  the  purview
of Right to Information Act and to carry out a suitable  amendment  to  this
effect.   While  the  second  recommendation  is  to  the  effect  that  the
Parliament ought to legalize betting in cricket.   Dealing  with  the  first
recommendation the Committee has observed:

“The  Right  to  Information  Act,  2005  (‘RTI  Act’)  enacts  that  public
authorities shall make known the particulars of the facilities available  to
citizens.  While the issue of the BCCI being amenable to the RTI Act is  sub
judice  before  the  High  Court  of  Madras  in   W.P.No.20229/2013,   many
respondents who appeared and interacted with the Committee were of the  view
that BCCI’s activities must come under the RTI Act.  Having  regard  to  the
emphasis laid by the Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  that  BCCI  discharges  public
functions and also  the  Court’s  reference  to  indirect  approval  of  the
Central and State Governments in activities which has created a monopoly  in
the hands of the BCCI over cricket, the Committee feels that the  people  of
the country have a right to know the details about the BCCI’s functions  and
activities.   It  is  therefore  recommended  that  the   legislature   must
seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act.”



82.   We are not called upon in these proceedings to issue any direction  in
so far as the above aspect is concerned. All that we need say is that  since
BCCI discharges public functions  and  since  those  functions  are  in  the
nature of a monopoly in the hands of the BCCI with  tacit  State  Government
and Central Government approvals, the public at large has a  right  to  know
and demand information as to  the  activities  and  functions  of  the  BCCI
especially  when  it  deals  with  funds  collected  in  relation  to  those
activities as a trustee of wherein the beneficiary happens to be the  people
of this country.  As a possible first step  in  the  direction  in  bringing
BCCI  under  purview  of  Right  to  Information  Act,  we  expect  the  Law
Commission of India to examine the issue and make a suitable  recommendation
to the Government.  Beyond that we do  not  consider  it  necessary  to  say
anything at this stage.



83.   So also the recommendation made by the Committee that  betting  should
be legalized by law, involves the enactment of a Law which is a matter  that
may be examined by the Law Commission and the Government for such action  as
it may consider necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

84.   The third recommendation which has given rise to some  debate  at  the
bar touches the broadcast/ telecasting of  sporting  events  hosted  by  the
BCCI.  The  Committee  appears  to  have  taken  the  view  that  commercial
expediency has overtaken the need for a neat telecast of the events for  the
benefit of the viewers. The Committee has observed :

“Commerce has also overtaken the enjoyment of the sport, with  advertisement
continuing many a time, even after the first ball and again commencing  even
before the last ball of the over is played, thereby  interrupting  the  full
and proper broadcast of  the  game.   Regardless  of  the  wicket  that  has
fallen, century having been hit or other momentous event,  full  liberty  is
granted  to  maximize  the  broadcaster’s  income  by  cutting  away  to   a
commercial, thereby  robbing  sport  of  its  most  attractive  attribute  –
emotion.  It is recommended that all existing  contracts  for  international
Test & One-Day matches be revised and  new  ones  ensure  that  only  breaks
taken by both teams for drinks, lunch and tea will permit the  broadcast  to
be interrupted with advertisements,  as  is  the  practice  internationally.
Also, the entire space of the screen during the broadcast will be  dedicated
to the display of the game, same for a small sponsor logo or sign.”



85.   BCCI has filed objections in so far as the above  recommendations  are
concerned.  Firstly, it is stated that the telecast/broadcast  of  the  game
covers the entire over, namely, from the first ball to the last ball of  the
over  and  no  part  of  the  game’s  telecast  is  hampered  by  commercial
exploitation of the event. The second contention urged is that the  revision
of contracts  already  fixed  is  likely  to  result  in  serious  financial
difficulties and other implication which will not be in the interest of  the
game.  It is also contended that any modification of the  contractual  terms
and conditions at this stage is likely to result in a heavy  financial  loss
to the BCCI.  To the same effect was the  submission  which  Mr.  Venugopal,
Counsel appearing for the BCCI who argued  that  commercial  aspect  of  the
game could be best left to be considered by the BCCI and any  change  if  at
all called for  could  be  introduced  after  the  expiry  of  the  existing
contracts.  This was without prejudice to Mr.  Venugopal’s  submission  that
the pleasure of watching the game on television sets or on radios was in  no
way affected by the commercial exploitation of the event.



86.   The Committee’s concern, it is  evident  from  the  passage  extracted
above is about the excessive exploitation of the  commercial  space  granted
to the broadcaster and in the process  affecting  the  viewers’  ability  to
view the game in the best possible way.  The Committee’s  recommendation  is
obviously based on the premise that even the viewers have a  right  to  view
the game uninterrupted by any commercials and that  the  BCCI’s  ability  to
encash the popularity of the game may be affected if  the  interest  of  the
viewers and resultantly their numbers was reduced by excessive  exploitation
of the commercial  space.   It  is,  however,  difficult  for  us  in  these
proceedings to authoritatively pronounce upon the impact  that  the  current
contracts  have  on  the  viewers  ability  to  enjoy   the   game   without
interruption or the  financial  implication  that  may  arise  in  case  the
contracts are modified as recommended by the Committee. The  proper  course,
in  our  opinion,  is  to  leave  the  recommendation  as  it  is  for   the
consideration of the BCCI with the observation  that  BCCI  may  keeping  in
mind the sentiments expressed by the Committee ensure that the  viewers  get
to see an uninterrupted broadcast of the match from the first till the  last
ball of the over and limiting the commercial advertisement in terms of  time
and space to an extent that will not deprive the viewers of the pleasure  of
watching the game in full.  We make it clear that we have not expressed  any
opinion in this regard and leave it for the BCCI to examine the matter  from
all possible angles and take a considered  decision  having  regard  to  the
recommendations  made  by  the  Committee  and  the   feasibility   of   any
modification in the existing contracts.

87.   Last but not the least is the recommendation  made  by  the  Committee
that the Governing Council of the IPL ought to be  reconstituted  so  as  to
comprise three ex-officio members of the BCCI  namely;  the  Secretary,  the
Treasurer and the CEO.  Two representatives of the Members  of  BCCI  to  be
elected by the General Body, two nominees of the  IPL  franchisees  and  one
nominee each to be nominated by the C&AG and from the Players’  Association.
 The BCCI has objected to the recommendation in so far as same  pertains  to
induction of two nominees of the franchisees.  The BCCI  contends  that  the
induction of the nominees from  the  franchisees  is  impermissible  because
important matters like players retention policy, posting of umpires for  IPL
matches, etc. are deliberated upon and  decided  by  the  Governing  Council
itself.  There is therefore an evident  conflict  of  interest  between  the
nominees of the IPL franchisees on the one hand and their  role  as  members
of the Governing Council on the other.  The BCCI contends  that  this  Court
has set  aside  an  amendment  by  which  the  BCCI  had  permitted  persons
affiliated with the franchisees to take part in the management  of  the  IPL
on the  ground  that  the  same  violates  the  principle  of  institutional
integrity.  The induction of the representatives  of  the  franchisee  would
however, bring about a conflict of interest  which  is  neither  permissible
nor desirable.



88.   The recommendation made by the Committee  does  not  elaborately  deal
with the need for induction of the nominees of the IPL  franchisees  in  the
Governing Council. All that is  said  is  that  the  Governing  Council  has
denied  any  role  to  the  franchisee  companies  and  that  there  is   no
independent voice in the Governing Council which is dominated  by  the  full
members of the BCCI and two  former  cricketers.   The  Committee  does  not
appear to have addressed the question of conflict of interest in  the  event
IPL franchisees place two nominees in the Governing Council keeping in  view
the fact that the Governing Council takes important decisions  like  players
retention policy and in posting of umpires for IPL matches  etc.   There  is
prima facie a possibility  of  conflict  of  interest  arising  out  of  the
franchisees representation in the Governing Council.  Be that as it  may  we
do not consider it necessary to finally pronounce on this aspect  which  can
be better left to the Committee to re-examine in the light of what has  been
observed earlier.  We make it clear that  if  upon  reconsideration  of  the
matter the Committee takes a view that the induction of the nominees of  the
franchisees will not result in any conflict of interest, it  shall  be  free
to stick to its recommendations in which event the recommendations shall  be
deemed to have been accepted by this Court to be formalized and carried  out
in such manner as the Committee may decide.


89.   We may, in conclusion, deal with two other recommendations which  have
also come under criticism by the  BCCI  and  the  intervening  associations.
The first of these recommendations proposes a cap on  the  number  of  terms
for which an officer bearer can serve and the optimum period for  which  one
can be a member of the apex council.  The recommendation also  provides  for
cooling off period  between  two  terms.  It  also  prescribes  grounds  for
disqualification of  office  bearer  which  were  otherwise  absent  in  the
existing rules and regulations of the BCCI. These  recommendations  come  in
the wake of a finding by the Committee that under the  present  dispensation
office bearers could continue for any number of terms.  It was also  noticed
that no grounds for disqualifying an office  bearers  were  prescribed.  The
Committee found both of these  to  be  unacceptable  and,  in  our  opinion,
rightly so. Given the problems that often arise on  account  of  individuals
holding office for any number of consecutive terms, the  Committee  was,  in
our opinion, justified in recommending the length of a  term  in  office.  A
three  year  term  recommended  by  the  Committee  is,  in   our   opinion,
reasonable.  So also, the prescription of cooling  off  period  between  two
terms cannot be faulted. Similarly, an  optimum  period  of  9  years  as  a
member of the apex council cannot also be termed as  unreasonable.   Grounds
for disqualification  like  unsoundness  of  mind,  the  member  becoming  a
minister or holding  a  membership  in  any  sporting  body  also  meet  the
requirement of reasonableness and do not  call  for  interference  from  the
court.  The contention that the recommendations have no  rationale  or  that
the same are  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Societies
Registration Act deserve notice only to be rejected.

90.   The other recommendation which we may deal with  is  the  overhaul  of
the existing Committees of the BCCI on the ground  that  they  do  not  have
clearly defined terms of reference. The Committee has  on  the  basis  of  a
thorough consideration and deliberation with all concerned recommended  that
the BCCI  ought  to  adopt  an  approach  that  would  institutionalize  the
management of its administrative affairs rather than such affairs being  run
on an ad-hoc basis. The Committee  has,  on  that  premise,  recommended  an
administrative set up which it has evolved on the basis of its  interactions
with people who have the necessary expertise and insight into the  needs  of
the BCCI and its associations. We, therefore, see no compelling  reason  for
us to reject the recommendation made by the Committee, especially  when  the
objective underlying the  said  recommendation  is  not  only  laudable  but
achievable through the medium of the change recommended by the Committee.



91.   In the result, we accept the report submitted  by  the  Committee  and
the recommendations made therein with such modifications and  clarifications
as have been set out by us in the body of this judgment.  Having  said  that
we must hasten to add that the  implementation  of  the  recommendations  is
equally important and ought to be achieved within a reasonable  period.  The
transition from the old to the  new  system  recommended  by  the  Committee
shall have to be under the watchful supervision of  this  Court.  Constrains
of time and the multiple dimensions  of  the  recommendations  made  however
make it difficult for us to take that supervisory role upon  ourselves.  The
supervision of the transition can, in our opinion, be left to be  undertaken
by the Committee not only because it has a  complete  understanding  of  and
insight into the nature of the problems sought to be remedied but  also  the
ability  to  draw  timelines  for  taking  of  steps   necessary   for   the
implementation of the proposed reforms. We are conscious of  fact  that  the
process may be time consuming but we hope that the same should be  completed
within a period of four months  or  at  best  six  months  from  today.  We,
therefore,  request  the  committee  headed  by  Justice   Lodha   to   draw
appropriate  timelines  for  implementation  of  the   recommendations   and
supervise the implementation thereof.



92.   Needless to say that the BCCI and all concerned  shall  cooperate  and
act in aid of the Committee  and  its  directives.  Should  any  impediments
arise, the Committee shall be free to seek appropriate directions from  this
Court by filing a status report in that regard.



93.   The Committee shall be free to determine and  direct  payment  of  its
fee for the time it devotes pursuant to this order.



94.   With these observations we dispose of the matter  finally  placing  on
record our deep appreciation for the commendable work  which  the  Committee
has done in a short period. We also place on  record  our  appreciation  and
gratitude to Mr. Gopal Subramanium,

senior advocate, for lending valuable assistance to us as Amicus Curiae.  No
costs.





                                                   .....................CJI.
                                                               (T.S. THAKUR)




                                                   .......................J.
                                          (FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA)

New Delhi.
July 18, 2016