Sports: BCCI – Interim application filed by BCCI seeking the leave of this Court to give effect to certain amendments in their Constitution – Held: With regard to amendment in Clause 6(4) of the existing Constitution which contains the stipulation that an office bearer who has held any post for two consecutive terms either in a state association or in the BCCI or a combination of both shall not be eligible to contest any further election without completing a cooling off period of three years – BCCI seeking the requirement of a cooling off period to confine only to the posts of President and Secretary – The amicus curiae proposed a bifurcation of the existing provision by introducing similar requirements of cooling off periods both at the level of the BCCI and in the state associations – The purpose for which the cooling off period was introduced, would not be diluted by the proposed amendment, subject to the stipulations suggested by the amicus curiae – The proposed stipulation that the cooling off period comes into effect after two consecutive terms at the same level namely, at the state associations or the BCCI does not abrogate the purpose of a cooling off period – Hence, the suggestions stipulated by amicus curia accepted – With regard to amendment in Clause 6(5) which states the grounds of disqualification from being an office bearer, a member of the governing council or any Committee or a representative to the International Cricket Council or any similar organization – The stipulation that the disqualification should attach on a conviction of an offence was accepted – However, the further condition that a disqualification would follow upon a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more not accepted – Certain other amendments were sought on the basis of above amendments, hence, accepted. Disposing of the interim application, the Court HELD: 1. The existing position is that: (i) A person who is elected as an office bearer in a state association for two consecutive terms would have to undergo a cooling off period;
(ii) A person who is elected as an office bearer at the BCCI for two consecutive period would have to undergo a cooling off period; and (iii) A person who is elected as an office bearer in a state association for one term followed by election as an office bearer at the BCCI for one term would similarly have to undergo a cooling off period. The consequence, therefore, is that a person who has held office as an elected office bearer for only one term at the BCCI would have to undergo a cooling off period. The submission is that the application of a cooling off period after one term at a particular level (the BCCI or state association, as the case may be on after an immediately prior term at another level) is unduly stringent and needs to be modified having regard to the purpose for which the cooling off period was introduced. [Paras 14 and 15][528-D-H]
2. BCCI is an autonomous sports body. The judgment of this court did not abrogate its power, as a registered society, to amend its Constitution. The stipulation that an amendment be carried by a three fourths majority and should not be implemented without the prior leave of this court is in order to ensure that the purpose underlying the adoption of the Constitution of BCCI is not defeated. The purpose for which the cooling off period was introduced, would not be diluted by the proposed amendment, subject to the stipulations suggested by the amicus curiae. The proposed stipulation that the cooling off period comes into effect after two consecutive terms at the same level namely, at the state associations or the BCCI does not abrogate the purpose of a cooling off period. Therefore, the amendment as set out in Column
3 above is accepted [Para 16][529-A-C]
3. The next amendment is proposed to Clause 6(5) of the BCCI’s Constitution. As in the case of Clause 6(4), the amendment which was proposed to Clause 6(5) was deliberated upon during the course of the hearing and certain suggestions have been made in the course of the discussion by the amicus curiae. BCCI has submitted that the disqualification from holding any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from cricket needs to be modified since several cricketers of eminence are associated with other sporting activities such as football and golf after retirement from cricket and there is no reason to disqualify them on that ground. Secondly, it has been submitted that the disqualification which is attached to a person who is charged of having committed a criminal offence is proposed to be modified so as to apply to a person who is convicted of an offence and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years. This amendment, it has been submitted, is intended to protect office bearers who may be subjected to frivolous prosecutions. Finally, it has been submitted that the expression “or holds a public office” is over-broad and that the disqualification should only apply to a person who holds office as a Minister or government servant. [Paras 17 and 18][529-C-D; 530-F-H; 531A]
4. The stipulation that the disqualification should attach on a conviction of an offence may be accepted. However, the further condition that a disqualification would follow upon a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more cannot be accepted. During the hearing, BCCI agreed that the disqualification would govern a conviction and sentence of imprisonment. The reasons set out for the other amendments are acceptable. [Para 19][531-B-C]
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.