Cricket: Spot fixing – Ban for life – Plea of violation of rules of natural justice – In the instant case, appellant was registered player and participated in IPL match – Allegation against the appellant was that in the match played on 09.05.2013 between Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab at Mohali, in exchange of Rs.10 lakh, he agreed to concede 14 or more runs in the second over of bowling spell – One-man Commission which was constituted by BCCI on direction of Supreme Court submitted a Preliminary report – The report relied on the video clipping and recordings of telephone conversation and opined that there was sufficient evidence against the appellant to prove him guilty of various Articles of Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI – The report also stated that the Commissioner had no access to the appellant as he was in police custody – After the appellant was released from police custody, he appeared before the Commissioner and gave his statement – Thereafter the Commissioner submitted Supplementary report accusing the appellant of offences under the Anti-Corruption Code – Disciplinary Committee heard the appellant and communicated its decision of banning him from playing or representing for life – Appellant raised plea that principles of natural justice was violated as the transcripts of telephone conversation relied by the Disciplinary Committee of the BCCI was not provided to him and further he was not confronted with transcript of the telephone conversation relied on by it – Held: The transcripts of telephone conversations were received by the appellant from the Police much before issuance of the show-cause notice by the Disciplinary Committee – The submission of Preliminary Report without taking statement of the appellant was in the circumstances that the appellant was in the Police custody and under the order of Supreme Court, the Commissioner had to submit report within 15 days – When the appellant was released from the custody, his statement was duly taken and after considering his statement further Supplementary Report was submitted – In the show-cause notice with respect to the material relied by the Disciplinary Committee, the appellant was given full opportunity to have his say – Thus, there was no violation of principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Committee – Doctrines/Principles – Natural Justice.
Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Allegation of betting, bringing disrepute to the game and failure to disclose to the ACU BCCI full details of any approaches and invitations to engage in conduct that amounted to breach of the Code – Whether Disciplinary Authority was right in holding that there were sufficient materials to hold the appellant guilty of offences of corruption under various articles of Anti-corruption Code – Held: There being specific allegations made against the appellant in the show-cause notice, it was incumbent on the appellant to have explained the evidence and circumstances which were sought to be relied against the appellant – In the disciplinary proceedings a delinquent has to explain circumstances and evidence relied against him – It is true that the charges have to be proved by the BCCI for taking any action under the Anti-Corruption Code – The Disciplinary Committee of the BCCI had jurisdiction to form its own opinion after considering the evidence on record including the telephonic conversation and other evidence on the record – The conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Committee on the basis of the material cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity which may warrant judicial review by the constitutional courts – Judicial Review.
Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Article 3.1 – Whether the Disciplinary Committee has rightly placed burden of proof on the appellant whereas according to Anti-Corruption Code under Article 3.1, the burden of proof was on the designated Anti-Corruption Official and whether by wrongly placing the burden of proof the Disciplinary Committee has erred in recording its conclusion – Held: Article 3.1 deals with burden of proof and standard of proof – The initial burden of proof is on the Designated Anti-Corruption Official i.e. Disciplinary Committee which has to form its opinion about the commission of designated offences by the delinquent – Before taking the decision when show-cause notice is served on the appellant making allegations and referring to relevant materials in support of the said allegation, it was incumbent on the appellant to have satisfactorily explained each and every circumstances or evidence referred to and relied – When the explanation submitted by the appellant was not found satisfactory, he having not been able to satisfactorily explain the allegations which were noticed from the telephone conversation between the appellant and the bookie, it cannot be said that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the appellant – Initial burden as referred to in Article 3.1 stood discharged when the allegation referring to materials and evidence are communicated to delinquent – Standard of proof as referred to in Article 3.1 is that the BCCI Disciplinary Committee is to be comfortably satisfied, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that is being made, that the alleged offence has been committed – Of course, on mere doubt the Disciplinary Committee cannot hold offences proved, there has to be a positive evidence and finding regarding the proof of offences – The burden of proof was not wrongly placed on the appellant.
Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Burden of proof, standard – The standard of proof in a disciplinary inquiry and in a trial of a criminal case are entirely different – In a criminal case it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in disciplinary inquiry under Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI the preponderance of probability is to serve the purpose. Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Criminal case – Discharge of appellant from the criminal case – Whether the discharge order has any effect on the disciplinary proceeding of BCCI under Anti-Corruption Code – Held: There is a vast distinction in the scope of inquiry between a criminal trial on one hand and disciplinary inquiry against a public servant or disciplinary inquiry under Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI on other hand – The question before the Sessions Court was whether the appellant was guilty of offences under the criminal statutes – Sessions Court had not to deal with the question whether the appellant was guilty of violating Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI – The clauses which the appellant breached under the Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI were entirely different from the offences under which the appellant had been charged before the Sessions Court – The ingredients required to establish a breach of the BCCI Code are also distinct and separate from the ingredients required to prove offences under the penal statutes – The conclusions and observations as recorded in the disciplinary proceedings under Anti-Corruption Code were entirely different from proof of criminal charges which are on higher yardstick to prove – Thus, the discharge order had no effect on the disciplinary proceeding of BCCI under Anti-Corruption Code. Cricket: BCCI – Anti-Corruption Code – Imposition of maximum sanction of life time ban by Disciplinary Committee on charges under Article 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 of the Anti-Corruption Code – Propriety of – Held: Sanction under Article 6 of Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI is nothing but punishment on commission of the offences and akin to sentencing in criminal jurisprudence – The principles of sentencing as applicable in offence under the Indian Penal Code may not be strictly applicable to one of punishment/sanction under the Anti-Corruption Code but principles of sentencing as applicable in the criminal jurisprudence may be relevant for imposing sanction under the Anti-Corruption Code – In cases where offences under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 are proved, the Disciplinary Committee is not obliged to award a life time ban in all cases where such offences are proved – When range of ineligibility which is minimum five years, maximum life time ban is provided for, the discretion to which, either minimum or maximum or in between has to be exercised on relevant facts and circumstances – No doubt, Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI envisages zero tolerance to corruption – However, zero tolerance approach cannot dilute consideration of relevant factors while imposing sanction under Article 6 – Disciplinary Committee’s order did not advert to the aggravating and mitigating factors as enumerated in Articles 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 – Without considering the relevant provisions of Anti-Corruption Code, the Disciplinary Committee imposed a life time ban on the appellant which sanction was not in accordance with the Anti-Corruption Code itself – Sentence/Sentencing. Disciplinary Committee: Constitution of – Propriety challenged – Whether the constitution of Disciplinary Committee was vitiated by including Shri Srinivasan as President who had already stepped down on 02.06.2013 resulting in vitiation of entire proceedings – Held: There was no legal impediment in Shri Srinivasan participating in the Disciplinary Committee in the meeting of 13.09.2013 as President – The appellant having not taken this ground even in the grounds of appeal is not allowed to question the constitution of Disciplinary Committee at this stage.
Administrative Law: Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review, scope of interference – Constitutional court in exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Code of Conduct framed by the BCCI to interfere only when conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee are perverse or based on no evidence – On appreciation of evidence, it is not open for the High Court or Supreme Court to substitute its own opinion based on the appreciation of material on record on the charges proved – Cricket.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The present is not a case where telephone conversations have been referred without they not being available to the appellant. The transcripts of telephone conversations were received by the appellant from the Police much before issuance of the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary committee. The appellant in his reply has not made any complaint of nonreceipt of transcripts. When the appellant was released from the custody, his statement was taken and after considering his statement further Supplementary Report was submitted. There was no violation of principles of natural justice by the disciplinary committee of the BCCI. [Paras 23, 25] [788-E-F; 789-B-C]
2.1 The disciplinary inquiry conducted by disciplinary committee of BCCI is akin to disciplinary inquiry conducted against a public servant. There being specific allegations made against the appellant in the show-cause notice, it was incumbent on the appellant to have explained the evidence and circumstances which were sought to be relied against the appellant. In the disciplinary proceedings a delinquent has to explain circumstances and evidence relied against him. It is true that the charges have to be proved by the BCCI for taking any action under the Anti-Corruption Code. The disciplinary committee of the BCCI had jurisdiction to form its own opinion after considering the evidence on record including the telephone conversation and other evidence on the record. The conclusion drawn by the disciplinary committee on the basis of the material cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity which may warrant judicial review by the constitutional courts. Constitutional court in exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Code of Conduct framed by the BCCI will interfere only when conclusions of the disciplinary committee are perverse or based on no evidence. It is not open for the High Court or this Court to substitute its own opinion based on the appreciation of material on record on the charges proved. For the decision of the disciplinary committee holding charges under Articles 2.1.1., 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.2.3 and Article
2.4.1. and 2.4.2 proved, there are no grounds for this Court to take a different view. [Paras 30, 34, 35][790-F-G; [794-G-H; 795-A-B, D-E]
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975)
2 SCC 557 : [1976] 1 SCR 521; Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610; Central Industrial Security Force and Others v. Abrar Ali (2017) 4 SCC 507 – relied on.
3. Article 3.1 deals with burden of proof and standard of proof. The initial burden of proof shall be on the Designated AntiCorruption Official i.e. disciplinary committee which has to form its opinion about the commission of Designated Offences by the delinquent. Before taking the decision when show-cause notice is served on the appellant making allegations and referring to relevant materials in support of the said allegation, it was incumbent on the appellant to have satisfactorily explained each and every circumstances or evidence referred to and relied. When the explanation submitted by the appellant was not found satisfactory, he having not been able to satisfactorily explain the allegations which were noticed from the telephone conversation between the appellant and the bookie, it cannot be said that the burden of proof has wrongly been placed on the appellant. Initial burden as referred to in Article 3.1 shall stand discharged when the allegation referring to materials and evidence are communicated to delinquent. The burden of proof was not wrongly placed on the appellant. [Para 37] [796-B-F]
4.1 There is a vast distinction in the scope of inquiry between a criminal trial on one hand and disciplinary inquiry against a public servant or disciplinary inquiry under AntiCorruption Code of BCCI on other hand. The ingredients required to establish a breach of the BCCI Code are also distinct and separate from the ingredients required to prove offences under the penal statutes in question. The standard of proof in a disciplinary inquiry and in a trial of a criminal case are entirely different. In a criminal case it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt wherein in departmental inquiry preponderance of probability is to serve the purpose.[Paras 38, 39] [796-G; 797-B-C]
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 265 : [2006] 3 SCR 872 – relied on.
4.2 The conclusions and observations as recorded in the disciplinary proceedings under Anti-Corruption Code are entirely different from proof of criminal charges which are on higher yardstick to prove. It is a well settled principle that criminal charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is not applicable in disciplinary proceedings initiated by the disciplinary committee of the BCCI. [Para 40] [797-F-G]
5. There was no legal impediment in Shri Srinivasan participating in the disciplinary committee in the meeting of 13.09.2013 as President. The appellant having not taken this ground even in the grounds of this appeal, he cannot be allowed to question the constitution of disciplinary committee at this stage. [Para 41] [798-D-E]
6.1 The Anti-Corruption Code uses the word “offences” and offences are enumerated under the Code for which sanction is provided in Article 6. Sanction under Article 6 is nothing but punishment on commission of the offences and akin to sentencing in the criminal jurisprudence. The principles of sentencing as applicable in offence under Indian Penal Code may not be strictly applicable to one of punishment/sanction under the Anti-Corruption Code but principles of sentencing as applicable in the criminal jurisprudence may be relevant for imposing sanction in Anti-Corruption Code. In the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, there are no structured sentencing guidelines. In March, 2003, the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (the Malimath Committee), a body established by the Ministry of Home Affairs, issued a report that emphasized the need to introduce sentencing guidelines in order to minimise uncertainty in awarding sentences. The Indian Penal Code prescribe offences and punishments for the same. For many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum punishment is also prescribed. Various jurists and writers have tried to enumerate circumstances which may mitigate the gravity of offences. [Para 43] [801-F-H; 802-A-B]
Jagmohan Singh v. The State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC
20 : [1973] 2 SCR 541; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 – followed.
6.2 A zero tolerance towards any wrong-doing alone can satisfy the cry of clinching the Cricket. Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI clearly envisaged zero tolerance to corruption. What was meant by the zero tolerance is that any offence committed within the meaning of Anti-Corruption Code cannot be ignored or to be leniently dealt with. Zero tolerance emphasis taking cognizance of such offences and awarding suitable punishment. However, zero tolerance approach cannot dilute consideration of relevant factors while imposing sanction under Article 6. [Para 52] [807-B-D]
6.3 Article 6 itself enumerates aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Article 6 contains a heading ‘Sanctions’. Para 6.1 provides that in order to determine the appropriate sanction that is to be imposed in each case, the disciplinary committee must first determine the relative seriousness of the offence, including identifying all relevant factors that it deems to. Further, Article
6.1.2 enumerates the mitigating circumstances. The AntiCorruption Code which has articles containing mitigating and aggravating circumstances are necessarily to be taken into consideration while imposing punishment/sanction under Article 6. [Paras 54, 55, 56] [808-C-D; 809-C; 810-C]
Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others (2006) 2 SCC 359 : [2006] 1 SCR 477 ; Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC 545 : [2013] 4 SCR 104 ; Mukesh and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2017) 6 SCC 1 : [2017] 6 SCR 1 – relied on.
7.1 In the instant case, life ban was imposed on the appellant on offences under Article 2.1.1., 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.14 (corruption), for which as per second column a minimum of five years and maximum of life time ineligibility is provided for. Life ban cannot be imposed in all cases where such offences are proved. When range of ineligibility which is minimum five years, maximum life ban is provided for, the discretion to choose either minimum or maximum or in between has to be exercised on relevant factors and circumstances. [Para 57] [811-A-B]
7.2 The disciplinary committee’s order dated 13.09.2013 did not advert to the aggravating and mitigating factors as enumerated in Article 6.1.1. and 6.1.2. Without considering the relevant provisions of Anti-Corruption Code the disciplinary committee has imposed life time ban which sanction cannot be held to be in accordance with the Anti-Corruption Code itself. The disciplinary committee of the BCCI is empowered to impose appropriate sanction in terms of Article 6 of the Code upon consideration of relevant factors, without considering the relevant factors imposition of maximum punishment cannot be sustained. Apart from these factors, the subsequent conduct of the appellant also shows obedience to BCCI. Initially when the life time ban was imposed on 13.09.2013, appellant has not even challenged the said order, it was only after the appellant was discharged from the criminal case on 25.07.2015 and when the appellant got opportunity to play and participate in the Scotland Premier League on e-mail was sent through Kerala Cricket Association on 11.01.2017. It was only thereafter when No Objection Certificate was not granted to the appellant and the BCCI refused to modify the ban, writ petition was filed in the Kerala High Court. In so far as charges proved under Article 2.2.3, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, the maximum sanction is of 5 years, the award of punishment of five years shall also satisfy the requirement under Code, which need no separate consideration for the purposes of this case. As per Article 6.3.2 all sanction imposed on appellant shall run concurrently. As on date the period of 5 years sanction has come to an end. The order dated 13.09.2013 of the disciplinary committee only to the extent of imposing sanction of life time ban is set aside. The disciplinary committee of the BCCI may reconsider the quantum of punishment/sanction which may be imposed on the appellant as per Article 6 of the Anti-Corruption Code. The appellant may be given one opportunity to have his say on the question of quantum of punishment/sanction. The disciplinary committee may take decision on the quantum of punishment/sanction at an early date. Appellant shall await the decision of the disciplinary committee and future course of action shall be in accordance with the decision of the disciplinary committee so taken. [Paras 58, 59, 61] [811-C-H; 812-A; 813-G-H; 814-A-B]
Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Others (2015) 3 SCC 251 : [2015] 1 SCR 165 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.