Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VERSUS
WITH
WITH
ORDER
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD,J
Page 1
2
Raveendran. The status report filed by the Committee set out the
sequence of events that had taken place after the final judgment and
order of this Court dated 18 July 2016, which accepted the report
modifications. A gist of the status report has been set out in the earlier
the Committee has concluded that BCCI has violated its directions:
The Committee has observed that “BCCI has repeatedly taken steps to
and actions which “are grossly out of order and would even constitute
Committee also observed that the President of BCCI had even gone to
Page 2
3
to the Committee a supervisory role for ensuring the transition from the
Committee, while moving the status report observed that though the
25 August 2016 and 20 September 2016, that they would cooperate with
Page 3
4
This Court has noted that in spite of a direction issued by the Committee
September 2016, may transact only routine business for 2015-16 and
that any business or matter relating to 2016-17 may be dealt with only
state associations. This Court expressed the view that BCCI could and
while the Committee was still examining the need for formulating a
disbursement policy.
order dated 7 October 2016, BCCI stated that one of the reasons for its
failure to adopt the proposed MOA was the reluctance of the state
that if that be the position, there is no reason why the state associations
Page 4
5
accepted by this Court should either expect or draw any benefit from the
Page 5
6
above. Before we consider the affidavit that has been filed by the
events set out in his response to the status report, Mr Shetty has dealt
nominee of CAG (which has been directed by this Court on 18 July 2016
Page 6
7
on 15 October 2016, there is a denial that any such request was made by
Page 7
8
Page 8
9
8 Prima facie, it appears from the response that was filed by BCCI
Page 9
10
made by BCCI in its response to the status report contains a denial that
its President made a request to ICC to issue a letter stating that the
accepted that he had made a request to the Chairman of ICC for issuing
(to the effect that the recommendations of the Committee for appointing
Shetty did not in the response filed earlier by BCCI to the status report
disclose that there was a request for a letter by its President to the
Chairman, ICC.
August 2016, a copy of which has been placed on the record, are in
facie, it appears that the draft minutes were not before Mr Shetty when
assume that the disclosure which has now emerged in pursuance of the
Page 10
11
order of this Court dated 7 October 2016 would have been contained in
stated that the response filed by BCCI to the status report was based on
information derived from the records. If that be so, the purported draft
minutes of the Working Committee could not have missed his attention
or knowledge.
President of BCCI, even after the declaration of the final judgment and
order of this Court dated 18 July 2016, requested the Chairperson of ICC
for a letter “clarifying” (as he states) the position which he had taken as
BCCI President to the effect that the induction of a CAG nominee would
suspended from ICC. There was no occasion for the President of BCCI
a CAG nominee was accepted in the final judgment of this Court. In the
follows:-
Page 11
12
this Court binds BCCI. Prima facie, an effort has been made by the
status report claims that the CEO of ICC had “falsely” stated in his
interview that the President of BCCI had requested ICC to issue a letter
to have been stated by the CEO of ICC. It may also become necessary
Page 12
13
for this Court to assess the veracity of the version of Mr Shetty and that
consider filing a response setting out his version, to set the record
behalf of BCCI that though in the judgment of this Court dated 18 July
2016, it had been hoped that the process of implementing the reforms
four months or at best six months from today”, the Committee has
the said period. We find that the criticism of the Committee is not
justified for more than one reason. Though this Court expressed the hope
four months or at best within six months, this Court left it open to the
Page 13
14
as did the Committee, that the process could not be completed in one
implementation.
Committee dated 9 August 2016 which indicates that when the first set
Page 14
15
that it was only if the Review Petition, as well as Curative Petition were
cannot be heard to say that it would treat a judgment of this Court as not
having binding effect unless the Review or Curative Petitions that it has
15 For the reasons which have weighed with us in the earlier order of
this Court dated 7 October 2016 and for those which we have adduced
the present case. Despite the prima facie findings which were arrived at
in the previous order, the further hearing was deferred. There has been
BCCI had any difficulties about adhering to the timelines laid down by
the Committee, the appropriate course would have been to move the
Committee. Even the grievance which was urged during this proceeding
Page 15
16
beyond the parameters set by this Court can and ought to be urged
16 During the course of the hearing, Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior
whereby in the first instance, BCCI would establish its bona fides before
implementation of the judgment will verify whether there has been full
compliance with the directions which are stated by BCCI to have been
fulfilled.
17 The President and Secretary of BCCI shall (within two weeks) file
which compliance has been made and the steps proposed to be taken to
President and Secretary. Both the President and the Secretary shall
appear before the Committee in person, and explain the steps taken for
Page 16
17
secure compliance with the judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016,
complying with the direction set out above of filing statements and
19 For the reasons which have been contained in the present order of
the Court, we are of the view that the issuance of certain additional
directions has become inevitable, over and above those that are
come to the conclusion that, prima facie, there is substance in the status
judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016 has prima facie been impeded
Page 17
18
compliance with the judgment of this Court, and having regard to the
direction at this stage in terms of the request made by the Committee for
good faith and the steps taken for compliance both before the Committee
in the first instance and before this Court by the next date of hearing.
(i) BCCI shall forthwith cease and desist from making any
Page 18
19
this Court. Any transfer of funds shall take place to the state
the threshold value should or should not be approved; and (f) The
Page 19
20
the auditors.
(iii) The President and Secretary of BCCI shall within two weeks
BCCI shall also keep the Committee apprised about the steps
order.
Page 20
21
BCCI shall cooperate with the Committee and with the auditors by
2016.
............................................CJI
[T.S. THAKUR]
................................................J
[A.M. KHANWILKAR]
................................................J
[Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD]
New Delhi
October 21, 2016
Page 21