Page 1

REPORTABLE

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4235 OF 2014

Board of Control for Cricket in India                                   .....APPELLANT  

Versus  

Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors                                   .....RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4236 OF 2014

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1155 OF 2015

O R D E R

This  proceeding  is  a  sequel  to  the  order  and  directions  issued  on

21 October 2016. In the previous order of this Court, the status report submitted

Page 2

2

by the three member Committee (consisting of Justice R M Lodha, Justice Ashok

Bhan and Justice R V Raveendran) was taken up for consideration.  

2 The  Committee  was  tasked  with  overseeing  the  implementation  of  the

judgment and order of this Court dated 18 July 2016. The judgment of this Court

has attained finality. Review and Curative petitions have also been dismissed. By

its  judgment,  this  Court  has  accepted  the  recommendations  made  by  the

Committee in a  report  dated 18 December  2015 providing for  reforms in  the

structure, organization and working of BCCI. Such an exercise is necessary in

order to make the functioning of BCCI transparent, objective and accountable to

the trust with which it is impressed, as a body which presides over the affairs of a

sport which has millions of followers. This Court had by its judgment expressed

the hope that  the process of  implementing its  directions would be completed

within a period of four months or, at best, six months. The status report submitted

by the Committee recorded that the directions of this Court were ignored, actions

were  taken  by  BCCI  to  present  a  fait  accompli to  the  Committee  and  the

directives issued by the Committee were breached. The Committee observed

that BCCI has repeatedly taken steps to undermine its authority and this Court

with several statements and actions which “are grossly out of order and would

even constitute contempt”.  

3 On 7 October 2016, while taking note of the status report submitted by the

Committee, this Court recorded the following prima facie findings :

Page 3

3

“…  The sequence of events.. since 18th July, 2016 and referred to in the status report prima facie give an  impression  that  BCCI  has  far  from lending  its fullest  cooperation  to  the  Committee  adopted  an obstructionist and at times a defiant attitude which the Committee has taken note of and described as an impediment undermining not only the Committee but  even  the  dignity  of  this  Court  with  several statements  and  actions  which  according  to  the Committee are grossly out of order and may even constitute contempt”.

4 On  7  October  2016,  this  Court  took  note  of  the  fact  that  despite  the

directions which the Committee issued on 21 August 2016 that the AGM of BCCI

may  transact  only  routine  business  for  2015-2016  and  that  any  business  or

matter  for  2016-2017  may  be  dealt  with  only  after  the  adoption  of  the

Memorandum of Association and rules in pursuance of the recommendations of

the  Committee,  substantial  amounts  running  into  crores  of  rupees  were

disbursed in favour of State Associations. BCCI had informed the court that one

of the reasons for its failure to adopt the proposed MoA was the reluctance of its

State  Associations  to  subscribe  to  it.  In  this  background,  the  court  was

constrained to issue directions inter alia to the effect that no further amounts shall

be  disbursed  to  the  State  Associations  except  to  those  associations  which

undertake the reforms suggested by the Committee and accepted by the court.  

5 Another issue which was of concern was the conduct of the President of

BCCI (Mr Anurag Thakur) who, the Committee recorded as having asked the

Page 4

4

CEO of ICC to state that the Committee appointed by this Court amounted to

‘governmental  interference’.  It  may be  noted here  that  in  an  interview to  the

electronic media, the CEO of ICC stated that the President of BCCI sought a

letter from ICC that the appointment of a nominee of CAG (as directed by this

Court on 18 July 2016 in terms of the recommendations of the Committee) would

amount to ‘governmental interference’ inviting the suspension of BCCI from the

membership of ICC. By its order dated 7 October 2016, the President of BCCI

was directed to file a personal affidavit clarifying the position.  

6 There were two versions before this Court in regard to what had transpired

between the President of BCCI and Mr Shashank Manohar, President of ICC at a

meeting  that  was  held  at  Dubai  on  6  and  7  August  2016  during  an  ICC

Governance Review Committee meeting. Mr. Ratnakar Shivaram Shetty, General

Manager of Admin and Game Development, BCCI had in his response stated as

follows :

“It appears that an interview was given by Mr. David Richardson  the  ICC  CEO  falsely  stating  that  the BCCI President had requested the ICC to issue a letter  stating that  the intervention by this Hon’ble Court amounted to Governmental interference.  It is submitted that  no such letter  or oral  request was ever made to the said gentleman either by the BCCI President  or  any  office  bearer  of  the  BCCI.  It  is apparent that Mr. Richardson has confused himself in relation  to  the  issue.   This  issue  is  required  to  be considered in  the  light  of  the fact  that  Mr. Shashank Manohar  Senior  Advocate  had  clearly  opined  as  the BCCI  President  that  appointment  of  the  CAG  in  the BCCI shall result in suspension of the BCCI as it would

Page 5

5

constitute governmental interference.  In fact the same had  been  submitted  on  affidavit  before  this  Hon’ble Court.  However, as Chairman of the ICC, Mr. Manohar had taken a contrary stand and stated that it would not amount  to  governmental  interference.   It  was in this context  that  a  discussion took place between Mr. Shashank Manohar and Mr. Anurag Thakur during a meeting in Dubai wherein a clarification as sought by Mr. Anurag Thakur during an informal discussion on what the exact status would be if the CAG was inducted by the BCCI as part of its management and whether  it  would  amount  to  governmental interference as had been advised and affirmed by Mr. Manohar  during  his  stint  as BCCI  President.” (emphasis supplied)

Paragraph 7(d) of the response contains a statement that :

“It  is  being  incorrectly  alleged  that  the President BCCI made a request to the ICC to issue  a  letter  stating  that  this  Committee amounts  to  Governmental  interference.   This suggestion is denied”. (emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, the President of BCCI in his response (filed pursuant to the

directions of this Court) stated as follows :  

“In this context it is respectfully submitted that there was an ICC governance review committee meeting scheduled to be held in Dubai on 6th& 7th August 2016.  There  were  certain  issues  relating  to financial model for which my inputs were required and  as  such  I  was  invited  by  ICC  for  the  said meeting.   During the meeting with  regard to the review  of  the  constitutional  provisions  of  ICC,  I pointed  out  to  the  Chairman  of  the  ICC,  Mr. Shashank  Manohar  that  when  he  was  the President  of  BCCI he had taken a view that  the recommendations of the Justice Lodha committee

Page 6

6

appointing the nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council  would  amount  to  governmental interference  and  might  invoke  an  action  of suspension from ICC.  I therefore requested him that he being the ICC Chairman can a letter be issued  clarifying  the  position  which  he  had taken as BCCI President.  Mr. Manohar explained to  me  at  the  meeting  that  when  the  stand  was taken by him, the matter was pending before this Hon’ble  Court  and  had  not  been  decided. However,  on  18.07.2016  this  Hon’ble  Court delivered its judgment in the matter.  In the said judgment,  this  Hon’ble  Court  has  rejected  the submission that the appointment of the nominee of CAG  on  Apex  council  would  amount  to Governmental interference and had also held that the  ICC would  appreciate  the  appointment  as  it would  bring  transparency  in  the  finances  of  the Board.” (emphasis supplied)

7 In the response filed by Mr Shetty on behalf of BCCI there was a specific

denial  that  its  President  had requested  ICC to  issue a letter  stating that  the

Committee amounted to governmental interference. On the other hand, in the

affidavit which the President of BCCI filed in pursuance of the directions of this

Court dated 7 October 2016 he accepted having made a request to the Chairman

of ICC for issuing a letter “clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI

President” (that the recommendation of the Committee for appointment of a CAG

nominee  would  amount  to  governmental  interference  and  may  lead  to  a

suspension of BCCI from ICC membership). Mr Shetty had not disclosed that

there was any such request for a letter made by the President of BCCI whereas

Page 7

7

according to the latter he had made such a request. Mr Shetty in fact denied that

any request for a letter was made to the ICC President by Mr Anurag Thakur.

8 This Court by its order dated 21 October 2016 observed as follows :  

“10.Be  that  as  it  may, it  is  a  matter  of  serious concern that the 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  amount  to  governmental interference  and  may  result  in  BCCI  being suspended from ICC.  There was no occasion for the  President  of  BCCI  to  do  so  once  the recommendation  of  the  Committee  for  the induction of a CAG nominee was accepted in the final judgment of this Court.  In the judgment of this Court dated 18 May 2016, this Court observed as follows :

“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

Page 8

8

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”. 11 This  finding  which  is  contained  in  the  final judgment  and  order  of  this  Court  binds  BCCI. Prima  facie,  an  effort  has  been  made  by  the President of BCCI to create a record in order to question the legitimacy of the recommendation of the  Committee  for  the  appointment  of  a  CAG nominee after the recommendation was accepted by this Court on 18 July 2016.  We presently defer further consideration of the action to be taken with reference  to  his  conduct.  Mr.  Shetty  in  his response to 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  stating  that  the  intervention  of  this  Court amounted  to  governmental  interference.   The version  of  Mr.  Shetty  is  at  variance  to  what  is alleged to have been stated by the CEO of ICC.  It may  also  become  necessary  for  this  Court  to assess the veracity of the version of Mr. Shetty and that  of  Mr. Richardson.   Mr. Shashank Manohar, the  then  President  of  BCCI  is  presently  the Chairman of  ICC.   A copy of  this  order  shall  be forwarded  to  him  by  the  Secretary  to  the Committee in order to enable him to consider filing a response setting out his version, to set the record straight  and assist  this  Court.  Mr. Manohar  is  at liberty  to  obtain  a  report  from  Mr.  Richardson before filing his response.”

In  pursuance  of  the  directions  issued  by  this  Court  on  21  October  2016,  a

response received by Mr Shashank Manohar, President of ICC has been placed

before this Court by the Amicus Curiae.

Page 9

9

9 After reviewing whether due and adequate steps were taken by BCCI to

implement  the  final  judgment  of  this  Court,  this  Court  in  its  order  dated

21 October 2016 recorded the following findings :

“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 above, we are inclined to take a serious view of the conduct of BCCI in the present case.  Despite the prima facie findings  which  were  arrived  at  in  the  previous order, the further hearing was deferred.  There has been no change in the position of BCCI.  The intransigence  continues.  If  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 by BCCI, that some of the directions of the  Committee  have  travelled  beyond  the parameters set by this Court can and ought to be urged before the Committee in the first instance.” (emphasis supplied)

10 A statement was made on behalf of the BCCI by learned Senior Counsel

that BCCI would establish its bonafides before the Committee by establishing the

compliance made of those of its recommendations which are stated to have been

fulfilled. Accordingly, in order to furnish BCCI with an opportunity to demonstrate

its  compliance  with  the  directions  of  this  Court,  we  desisted  from issuing  a

direction at that stage for the appointment of administrators (as sought by the

Committee) in the hope that BCCI would comply with the judgment and order of

this Court in the meantime. While doing so, this Court observed that :

Page 10

10

“19….We  have  presently  come  to  the conclusion that, prima facie, there is substance in  the  status  report  submitted  by  the Committee.   Implementation  of  the  final judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016 has prima facie been impeded by the intransigence of  BCCI  and  its  office  bearers.   However, having due regard to the submission made on behalf  of  BCCI  that  it  would  make  every genuine  effort  to  persuade  the  state associations  to  secure  compliance  with  the judgment  of  this Court,  and having regard to the larger interests of the game of cricket, we are desisting  from issuing a  direction  at  this stage in  terms  of  the  request  made  by  the Committee for appointment of administrators so as to enable BCCI to demonstrate its 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.”  (emphasis supplied)

11 In pursuance of the previous directions issued by this Court, on 21 October

2016, the Committee filed another status report on 7 November 2016 on which

orders were passed by this Court on 8 November 2016. The Committee has filed

another status report on 14 November 2016 seeking the following directions :  

(i) That  all  office  bearers  of  BCCI  and  State  Associations  who  stand

disqualified  by  virtue  of  the  norms  contained  in  its  report  dated  4

October 2016 and accepted by this Court  must  cease to hold office

forthwith;

(ii) All administrative and management matters be carried out by the CEO

of BCCI without  advertence to the office bearers; and

Page 11

11

(iii) Appointment  of  anamed observer  to  supervise  the  administration  of

BCCI by the CEO.  

The Committee has suggested that its own role may be confined to overall policy

and direction and not the actual administration of BCCI.  

12 The President of  BCCI has filed an affidavit  in these proceedings on 3

December 2016. The affidavit states that neither the President nor the Secretary

of BCCI command voting rights in the meetings of the Working Committee. The

affidavit states in the following terms that the State Associations have declined to

accept  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Committee  and  accepted  by  this

Court :

“Accordingly the Hon Secretary convened the said meeting referred to above of the General Body of the BCCI for the 30.9.2016….

The  meeting  resumed  the  next  day  i.e.  on 1.10.2016….

I further state that I as Hon. President do not have a  vote  when  I  sit  in  the  general  body  meeting neither does the Hon. Secretary….

I further state that I as a Hon. President am in no position to force members to adopt the full memorandum  as  recommended, even  though armed with an order of this Hon’ble Court, as the members  are  of  the  opinion  that  as  per  the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 under which the BCCI is registered, they can  amend  their  memorandum  only  when  three fourths  of  the  members  present  and  entitled  to vote, accept the changes to the memorandum.

Page 12

12

I further state that another informal meeting of the members  was once again  held  in  New Delhi  on 15.10.2016,  wherein  I  along  with  the  Hon. Secretary  again  conveyed  to  all  the  members present  that  should  they  not  adopt  the memorandum  as  proposed  by  the  Lodha Committee, all  the payments due to the member state associations would be stopped….

The members stuck to their stand that they would abide by the new memorandum only as approved by them with the changes as approved by them in the  adjourned  meeting  of  the  30.9.2016, irrespective  of  the  fact  that  no  further  payments would be made to them.  The members were of the  view that  a  few  of  the  Lodha  Committee recommendations  were  not  in  the  interest  of Indian Cricket and would be a huge setback to the game in India and destroy it completely…..

As  Hon.  President,  I  am  rendered  totally incapable  and  without  any  authority  to  force the members, who are 30 in number and have voting  rights  under  the  statute,  to  adopt  the entire memorandum as proposed for adoption by  the  Hon.  Lodha  Committee.” (emphasis supplied)

13 The position as it has emerged before the court is that despite the fact that

there is  a  judgment  and final  order  dated 18 July  2016 accepting the report

submitted by the Committee, the implementation of the directions issued by this

Court has been obstructed and impeded. By the order of this Court of 7 October

2016  and  the  subsequent  directions  that  were  issued  on  21  October  2016,

sufficient time was granted to BCCI to abide by the judgment and order of this

Court.

Page 13

13

14 Initially, as the Committee informed this  Court,  BCCI appeared to have

taken the  position  that  it  was only  if  its  Review Petition  as  well  as  Curative

Petition were dismissed, that the recommendations of the Committee would be

accepted. This statement of BCCI at a meeting of its Working Committee held on

21 October 2016 was manifestly misconceived. Once this Court had affirmed the

recommendations of the Committee (with modifications) in a final judgment and

order dated 18 July 2016, the judgment had to be implemented as it stands. By

the Order of this Court dated 21 October 2016, this Court made it clear, if indeed

such a clarification was at all warranted, that :  

“A party to a litigation 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 filed are dismissed.”  

15 As a matter of record, both the Review as well as Curative petitions have

also been dismissed. Yet, the intransigence of BCCI has continued. The course

of  events  indicates  that  though  sufficient  opportunities  have  been granted  to

BCCI to comply with the judgment and order of this Court, it has failed to do so.

The President and Secretary and office bearers of  BCCI have obstructed the

implementation of the final directions of this Court on the basis of a specious plea

that its State Associations are not willing to abide by the directions. This Court

having furnished sufficient opportunities to BCCI to comply, it is constrained now

Page 14

14

to take recourse to coercive steps to ensure that the directions contained in its

final judgment and order are not left to be a writ in sand.  

16 The Committee consists of a former Chief Justice of India and two former

Judges of the Supreme Court. They have together been tasked with overseeing

implementation of the judgment of this Court. Yet, the Committee has repeatedly

been confronted with a barrage of unfortunate comments by BCCI – in Press

conferences  and in  correspondence with  an  intent  that  it  should  be led  to  a

situation where it throws up its arms in despair and frustration.  

17 Among the recommendations of the Committee that have been accepted

by this Court are the following disqualifications for being an office bearer of BCCI

and of the State Associations :

“A person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer if he or she :

(a) Is not a citizen of India; (b) Has attained the age of 70 years; (c) Is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind; (d) Is a Minister or Government Servant; (e) Holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association or

federation apart from cricket; (f) Has been an Office Bearer of  the BCCI for  a cumulative

period of 9 years; (g) Has been charged by a Court of Law for having committed

any criminal offence.”

18 The Committee has in its status report dated 14 November 2016 drawn the

attention of the court to the fact that several office bearers both of BCCI and the

State  Associations  continue  to  hold  posts  although  they  stand  disqualified  in

Page 15

15

terms of the above norms which have been accepted by this Court. Persons who

have a vested interest in continuing in their positions inspite of the norms noted

above have ensured that the writ of the court is obstructed and impeded. We

need to  emphasise  that  the  turf  of  the  cricket  field  is  not  a  personal  turf  or

fiefdom. We must hence order and direct that no person shall hereafter continue

to  be  or  be  entitled  for  appointment  as  office  bearer  of  BCCI  or  a  State

Association in breach of the above norms. All existing office bearers of BCCI and

of the State Associations who do not fulfill the above norms shall with effect from

the date of this Order stand disqualified.   

19 That leads the court to the issue of the conduct of Shri Anurag Thakur,

President of BCCI. By the final judgment and order of this Court dated 18 July

2016,  the  plea  that  the appointment  of  a  nominee of  CAG would amount  to

governmental interference with the affairs of BCCI was specifically negatived. By

its judgment, this Court had observed as follows :  

“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

Page 16

16

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.”

20 Once this position had been laid down by the court, there was no occasion

for the President of BCCI at the ICC Governance Review Committee Meeting

held at Dubai on 6 and 7 August 2016 to solicit a letter from the Chairperson of

ICC. Such a solicitation was but an effort to thwart the implementation of the

orders of the court. An attempt was made to build up a record to indicate that

implementing the orders of  the Supreme Court  of  India would run the risk of

endangering the status of BCCI as a member of ICC. In pursuance of the Order

of this Court, Mr. Shashank Manohar (President – ICC) has in an email dated

2 November 2016 addressed to the Committee made the following disclosure :

“I would like to state that there was a meting of the Working Group of the ICC held at Dubai on the 6th August,  2016  to  consider  the  ICCs  Governance and Financial Structure. At the meeting, apart from myself  and  Mr  Anurag  Thakur,  Mr  Giles  Clarke, Mr David Peever and Mr Imran Khwaja, who are all Directors  of  ICC  were  present.  The  ICC  CEO, Mr  David  Richardson  and  ICC  COO  Mr.  Lain Higgins were also present..

Page 17

17

During the meeting Mr Thakur pointed out to me that  when I  was the  President  of  BCCI  a submission was advanced before the Supreme Court at my behest that the appointment of a nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council might amount  to  Governmental  interference  and would invoke an action of suspension from the ICC. He therefore requested me to issue a letter to that effect in my capacity as ICC Chairman..

I declined to issue such a letter and explained to him that the said submission was advanced before the  Hon  Supreme  Court  when  the  court  was hearing  the  matter.  However,  on  18-7-2016  the Hon SC delivered its judgment in the matter and rejected the submission that the appointment of a nominee  of  the  CAG  would  amount  to governmental  interference.  The  Hon  SC  further held that the appointment of the CAG nominee on the Apex Council either made by the BCCI on its own  or  under  the  orders  of  a  competent  court aimed  at  bringing  financial  discipline  and transparency  cannot  be  seen  as  governmental interference calling for suspension of the BCCI by the ICC..

The  Hon  SC  further  held  that  the  ICC  would appreciate the appointment of such a nominee as the same would bring transparency in the finances of the Board..

I  therefore explained to Mr Thakur that the issue having been decided by the Hon Supreme Court of India, which is the highest court of the country and whose  judgment  binds  everybody,  I  cannot  give him any such letter.” (emphasis supplied)

21 The response by Mr Shashank Manohar indicates that the President of

BCCI requested him on 6 August 2016 to issue a letter  in his capacity as ICC

Chairman in terms of the position that he had adopted as the President of BCCI

Page 18

18

(“that  the  appointment  of  a  CAG  nominee  would  amount  to  governmental

interference and would invoke an action of suspension from ICC”). The conduct

of the President of BCCI in seeking a letter from the President of ICC in August

2016, after the final judgment and Order of this Court, is nothing but an attempt

on the part of the head of BCCI to evade complying, with the Order of this Court.

That he sought a letter is clear even from the affidavit of Mr Thakur dated 15

October 2016 (though he states that  he had requested the ICC Chairman to

clarify the position which he had taken as BCCI President). Even going by that

version, we are constrained to note that there was absolutely no occasion for the

President of BCCI to solicit any such clarification from the Chairperson of ICC in

the teeth of the judgment that was delivered by this Court.  Moreover, we find

adequate  reasons  to  doubt  the  veracity  of  the  explanation  which  has  been

tendered by Mr Thakur about the sequence of events. It must be noted that in the

response which was filed by Mr Ratnakar Shivaram Shetty to the status report of

the Committee there was a reference to a discussion which took place between

Mr Manohar and Mr Thakur in Dubai and to a clarification sought by the latter on

what  “the  exact  status  would  be”  if  a  CAG nominee was  inducted  by  BCCI.

Mr Shetty specifically denied that Mr Thakur had requested the ICC Chairperson

to issue a letter. Mr Shetty’s response was based on records. This reference to

some “clarification” was evidently not on the basis of the minutes of the purported

meeting of BCCI Working Committee held on 22 August 2016 which were placed

on record by learned Senior Counsel for BCCI during the course of the hearing

Page 19

19

prior to the Order of this Court dated 21 October 2016. If those minutes were

before Mr Shetty, he would have made a disclosure in their terms. The purported

minutes read as follows :

“Mr. Anurag Thakur was in the Chair and called the meeting to order and welcomed the members. He briefed the members  about  his  meeting with  the ICC Chairman at Dubai during the ICC governance review  committee  meeting  on  6th  &  7th  August 2016. Certain financial mode inputs were required during the said meeting which he gave. During the meeting  with  regard  to  the  review  of  the constitutional provisions of ICC it was informed by Mr.  Thakur  that  he  asked  Chairman  ICC  Mr. Shashank  Manohar  that  when  he  was  the President  of  BCCI he had taken a view that  the recommendations  of  Justice  Lodha  committee appointing the nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council  would  amount  to  governmental interference  and  might  invoke  an  action  of suspension from ICC. It was therefore requested from him that he being the ICC Chairman could a letter be issued clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI President. Mr. Manohar thereafter explained that when the stand was taken by  him  the  matter  was  pending  before  the Supreme Court and was not decided. However on 18th of July 2016 the Hon. Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment and the Court has rejected the  submission  that  the  appointment  of  the nominee of  CAG on Apex council  will  amount to Governmental interference and had also held that the  ICC would  appreciate  the  appointment  as  it would  bring  transparency  in  the  finances  of  the Board.  The  discussion  stopped  in  view  of  his explanation on this issue”. (emphasis supplied)

22 Prima facie it would appear that these minutes had not seen the light of the

day when the response by Mr Shetty to the status report of the Committee was

Page 20

20

filed, and have been fabricated subsequently to lend credence to the version of

Mr Thakur. The statement that Mr Manohar was requested to clarify the position

which he had taken as BCCI President is falsified by Mr Manohar’s disclosure

that he was asked to give a letter in his capacity as ICC Chairman.The version of

Mr Thakur that he had requested Mr Manohar that “he being ICC Chairman can a

letter be issued clarifying the position” which he had taken as BCCI President is

belied  by  the  disclosure  which  has  been  made  by  Mr  Shashank  Manohar.

Mr Manohar’ s response dated 2 November 2016 clearly indicates that during the

course of the meeting at Dubai on 6 August 2016, Mr Thakur requested him to

issue  a  letter  in  his  capacity  as  ICC Chairperson  that  the  appointment  of  a

nominee of CAG in BCCI might amount to governmental interference, leading to

action of  suspension  from ICC.  Prima facie,  it  emerges from the record that

Mr  Thakur  did  seek  such  a  letter  from  the  ICC  Chairperson  as  stated  by

Mr Manohar. The disclosure which Mr Thakur has made in his affidavit dated 15

October 2016 is prima facie false to his knowledge. Prima facie, we also find that

the  minutes  of  the  meeting  of  the  Working  Committee  of  BCCI  which  were

produced before this Court have been made up to lend support to the version of

Mr Thakur.  

23 We accordingly have arrived at the conclusion that Mr Thakur has by his

actions and conduct rendered himself unfit for continuance as President of BCCI,

for the following reasons :

Page 21

21

Firstly,  he  has  obstructed  and  impeded  the  implementation  of  the  directions

contained in the judgment and order of this Court dated 18 July 2016. His own

version is that he has been “rendered totally incapable and without any authority”

to compel the members to comply with the orders of this Court. This is indicative

of his having washed his hands off a duty and obligation to ensure compliance.  

Secondly, we are prima facie of the view that Mr Thakur is liable to be proceeded

with for contempt of court for having obstructed and impeded the orders of this

Court.  

Thirdly, prima facie we are of the view that Mr Thakur has made statements on

affidavit  before this Court which are false to his knowledge. A notice to show

cause should  be issued to  Mr  Thakur why he should  not  be proceeded with

under Section 195 read with Section 340 of  the Code of  Criminal  Procedure,

1973 for having made false statements before this Court.  

24 In determining the modalities to be followed, we have drawn sustenance

from an order dated 28 March 2014 passed by a Bench of two learned Judges of

this Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr Justice A K Patnaik and Hon’ble Mr Justice F

M I Kalifulla. In view of the circumstances which had then arisen resulting in the

President of  BCCI being unable to perform his duties,  this Court  appointed a

distinguished  cricket  sportsperson,  as  an  interim  measure,  to  exercise  the

powers of the President in relation to IPL 2014. With regard to all other matters,

Page 22

22

the  senior  most  Vice-President  of  BCCI  was  under  the  orders  of  the  Court

permitted to discharge the functions of the President, BCCI.  

25 For the above reasons, we order and direct as follows :  

(i) All the office bearers of BCCI and  of its affiliated State Associations who

fail to meet the norms recommended by the Committee and accepted by

this Court, shall forthwith demit and cease to hold office namely:  

“A person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer if he or she :

(a) Is not a citizen of India;

(b) Has attained the age of 70 years;

(c) Is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind;

(d) Is a Minister or government servant;

(e) Holds  any  office  or  post  in  a  sports  or  athletic association or federation apart from cricket;

(f) Has  been  an  Office  Bearer  of  the  BCCI  for  a cumulative period of 9 years;

(g) Has been charged by a Court  of  Law for  having committed any criminal offence.”  

(ii) Shri Anurag Thakur, President of BCCI and Shri Ajay Shirke, Secretary,

BCCI shall forthwith cease and desist from being associated with the

working of BCCI;

Page 23

23

(iii) A notice to show cause shall issue to Mr Anurag Thakur to explain why he

should not be proceeded against  under the provisions of Section 195 read

with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

(iv) A notice to show cause shall issue to Mr Anurag Thakur to explain why he

should not be proceeded with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;

(v) A Committee of administrators shall supervise the administration of BCCI

through its Chief Executive Officer;

(vi) This Court shall by a separate order nominate the persons who shall form

part of the Committee of administrators. In order to enable the Court to

have the benefit  of  objective assistance in making the nominations, we

request  Mr  Fali  S  Nariman,  learned  Senior  Counsel  and  Mr  Gopal

Subramaniam,  the  learned  Amicus  Curiae  to  assist  the  Court  by

suggesting names of persons with integrity and experience in managing a

similar enterprise. We request the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the  parties  to  also  place  their  suggestions  before  the  Court  so  as  to

facilitate a considered decision;

(vii) In  addition  to  the  function  assigned  in  (v)  above,  the  Committee  of

administrators  shall  also  ensure  that  the  directions  contained  in  the

judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016 (which accepted the report of

the Committee with modifications) are fulfilled and to adopt all necessary

and consequential steps for that purpose;

Page 24

24

(viii) In  view  of  the  directions  contained  in  (ii)  above,  the  senior  most

Vice-President of BCCI shall perform the duties of the President, BCCI and

the Joint  Secretary  shall  perform the duties  of  Secretary. Those of  the

office bearers of BCCI who are not disqualified in terms of clause (i) above

(other than the President and Secretary) may continue subject to their filing

an unconditional  undertaking before this  Court  within four  weeks of  the

date of this order to abide by and implement the directions contained in the

judgment dated 18 July 2016. Upon the Committee of administrators as

nominated by this Court assuming charge, the existing office bearers shall

function  subject  to  the  supervision  and  control  of  the  Committee  of

administrators. The Committee of administrators would have the power to

issue all  appropriate directions to facilitate due supervision and control;

and

(ix) The  remuneration  payable  to  the  members  of  the  Committee  of

Administrators shall be fixed in consultation with the Committee consisting

of  Mr Justice R M Lodha,  Mr Justice Ashok Bhan and Mr Justice R V

Raveendran.The role of the Justice R M Lodha Committee shall hereafter

be confined to overall  policy and direction on such matters  as may be

referred by this Court.  

(x) We would  request  the  leaned Senior  Counsel  and the  learned Amicus

Curiae to endeavour to submit their suggestions to this Court within two

weeks. The proceedings shall be listed before this Court on 19 January

Page 25

25

2017  for  pronouncement  of  directions  in  regard  to  the  names  of  the

administrators.   

26 There shall accordingly be an order in these terms.          

..............................................CJI                                    [T.S. THAKUR]

…...............................................J                                                  [A. M. KHANWILKAR]

..................................................J                                                                   [Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD]

New Delhi January  02, 2017