BCCI vs Cricket association of Bihar summary- In 2007, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) made the pivotal decision to introduce the Indian Premier League (IPL). Subsequently, during a meeting held on September 27, 2008, Mr. N. Srinivasan was appointed as the Secretary of BCCI. However, in April 2013, the Delhi Police received information regarding spot-fixing within the IPL.
BCCI vs Cricket association of Bihar summary
Charges were filed against Raj Kundra, the owner of Rajasthan Royals, and Gurunath Meiyappan, the son-in-law of N. Srinivasan, who was not only the current President of BCCI but also the owner of the IPL team Chennai Super Kings. In response, BCCI established a Probe Committee comprised of retired Judges from the Madras High Court.
Meanwhile, the Cricket Association of Bihar filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Bombay High Court. They sought the appointment of retired Supreme Court Judges to the probe committee and requested the termination of contracts with IPL franchises Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals. Additionally, they called for disciplinary proceedings against N. Srinivasan, the current President of BCCI.
The Bombay High Court did not endorse the Cricket Association of Bihar’s viewpoint and ruled against their petition. Disappointed by this decision, the Cricket Association of Bihar escalated the matter to the Supreme Court of India.
- Whether BCCI qualifies as a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and, if not, whether it is subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
- Whether an amendment to Rule 6.2.4 of IPL regulations, allowing administrators to have commercial interests in IPL, Champions League, and Twenty-20 events, is legal.
Arguments Presented: BCCI vs Cricket association of Bihar summary
The Mudgal Committee conducted investigations and penalized individuals and franchisees found guilty of cricket-related infractions. The Justice Lodha Committee, in a separate report, cleared Mr. Sundar Raman of charges. Both committees aimed to reform BCCI’s rules and regulations to enhance transparency, ethics, and efficiency. They sought to eliminate conflicts of interest and undue political or commercial influence.
To achieve their objectives, the committees conducted extensive research, interacted with various stakeholders, and gathered input from diverse sources. They identified widespread issues in cricket administration, such as financial irregularities, lack of transparency, favoritism, and political interference. This underscored the urgent need for reforms to restore integrity to the sport.
The committees also benchmarked international sports policies and governing body structures to implement effective measures to address conflicts of interest and enforce ethical standards. Their recommendations garnered both support and opposition from various parties and intervenors.
Judgment: BCCI vs Cricket association of Bihar summary
The Supreme Court ruled that BCCI did not fall under the definition of ‘State’ according to Article 12 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, it acknowledged that BCCI, despite not being a ‘State,’ performed public functions, such as selecting the national team, which made it subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Regarding the amendment to Regulation 6.2.4, which permitted administrators to have commercial interests in matches or events conducted by BCCI, the Court deemed it contradictory to BCCI’s fundamental principles and rules. Consequently, the amendment was considered impermissible in law.
For more like BCCI vs Cricket association of Bihar summary