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

Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD,J  

1 On 7 October 2016, directions were issued by this Court pursuant

to a status report dated 26 September 2016, submitted by the Committee

consisting of Justice R M Lodha, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice RV

Page 2

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

submitted  by  the  Committee  on  18  December  2015  with  certain

modifications.   A gist of the status report has been set out in the earlier

order dated 7 October 2016.  After adverting to the sequence of events,

the Committee has concluded that BCCI has violated its directions:  

“…Directions of this Hon’ble Court have been ignored, actions have been taken to present a  fait accompli to the Committee,  the directives of the Committee have been breached, and member associations have not been duly intimated about the directions of the Committee and the timelines fixed by it.”

The Committee has observed that “BCCI has repeatedly taken steps to

undermine the Committee and this Court”, with several statements

and actions which “are grossly out of order and would even constitute

contempt”.  The Committee noted that despite several e-mails, as well as

a direction to appear before it on 9 August 2016, the President of BCCI

did  not  furnish  even  a  single  response  to  the  Committee.   The

Committee also observed that the President of BCCI had even gone to

the  extent  of  requesting  ICC  to  issue  a  letter  that  “this  Committee

amounts  to  governmental  interference”  besides  making  several

objectionable statements in the press which undermined both the Court

and the Committee.  

Page 3

3

2 The Committee submitted the above status report in pursuance of

the  directions  contained in  the judgment  of  this  Court  dated 18 July

2016.  This  Court  had  by  its  judgment,  while  accepting  the

recommendations made in the earlier report of the Committee, assigned

to the Committee a supervisory role for ensuring the transition from the

old  to  the  new system recommended by the  Committee.   While  this

Court in its judgment expressed a hope that the process of implementing

the directions contained in the judgment would be completed within a

period  of  four  months  or  at  best  six  months,  the  Committee  was

requested to draw appropriate timelines for the implementation of the

recommendations  and  to  supervise  the  implementation  process.   The

Committee,  while  moving the  status  report  observed  that  though  the

office bearers of  BCCI had furnished assurances to it on 9 August 2016,

25 August 2016 and 20 September 2016, that they would cooperate with

the Committee in fulfilling the directions of this Court (subject to any

modification or review) these assurances had not been fulfilled.   

3 In the previous Order  of  this  Court  dated 7 October  2016, the

following prima facie, findings were recorded:-  

“… The sequence of events that have been taken place 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

Page 4

4

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”.

This Court has noted that in spite of a direction issued by the Committee

on 21 August 2016 that the AGM of BCCI which was to be held on 21

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

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 have been disbursed in favour of

state associations.  This Court expressed the view that BCCI could and

indeed ought to have avoided the disbursement of such a huge amount

while  the  Committee  was  still  examining the  need for  formulating  a

disbursement policy.   

4 During  the  course  of  the  hearing  which  resulted  in  the  earlier

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

associations to subscribe to it.  In this background, this Court observed

that if that be the position, there is no reason why the state associations

that  are  opposed  to  the  reforms  suggested  by  the  Committee  and

Page 5

5

accepted by this Court should either expect or draw any benefit from the

release of grants by BCCI.  The following directions have been issued

by this Court on 7 October 2016:-   

“i) No further amount in terms of the Resolution passed  in  AGM  on  09.11.2015  or  any subsequent  resolution  by  the  BCCI  or  its Working Committee shall  be disbursed to  any State  Association  except  where  the  State Association  concerned  passes  a  proper resolution  to  the  effect  that  it  is  agreeable  to undertake  and  to  support  the  reforms  as proposed  and  accepted  by  this  Court  in  letter and  spirit.   Upon  such  a  Resolution  being passed, a copy of the same shall be filed before Justice  Lodha  Committee  with  an  affidavit  of the President of the State Association concerned unequivocally  undertaking  to  abide  by  the reforms  as  proposed  by  the  Committee  and accepted and modified by this Court.  A similar affidavit with a copy of the Resolution shall be filed before this Court also.  It is only after such affidavits are filed, that BCCI may transfer the balance amount of Rs.16.73 crores each payable to the State Association.

As regards the 13 State Associations to whom the  payment  has  already  been  disbursed,  we direct that the State Association concerned shall not  appropriate  the  said  amount  except  after they  have  passed  a  resolution  and  filed  an affidavit  as  mentioned  above  before  Justice Lodha  Committee  and  before  this  Court.   In case  the  affidavits  are  not  filed,  the  amount disbursed  to  the  State  Associations  shall  be invested by the Associations in a term deposit subject to further directions of this Court.

ii)   Mr.  Ratnakar  Shivaram  Shetty,  General Manager, Admin and Game development shall, in the meanatime, place on record a copy of the authorization/resolution passed by the BCCI on

Page 6

6

the  basis  of  which  he  has  filed  the  affidavit supporting  the  response  of  the  BCCI  to  the status report.

iii)   Mr. Anurag Thakur, President of the BCCI shall  file  a  personal  affidavit  whether  he  had asked  the  CEO  of  the  ICC  to  state  that  the appointment  of  Justice  Lodha  Committee  was tantamount  to  Government  interference  in  the working of the BCCI.

iv)    Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel to  produce the original  record on the basis  of which the affidavit  by Mr. Ratnakar  Shivaram Shetty on behalf of BCCI has been filed”.

5 In pursuance of these directions, Mr Anurag Thakur, President of

BCCI has filed an affidavit specifically with reference to direction (iii)

above.   Before  we  consider  the  affidavit  that  has  been  filed  by  the

President of BCCI, it is necessary to advert to the response to the status

report of the Committee filed by Mr Ratnakar Shivaram Shetty, General

Manager,  Admn.  & Game Development,  BCCI.   In  the  sequence  of

events set out in his response to the status report, Mr Shetty has dealt

with the statement made in an interview given to the electronic media by

Mr  David  Richardson,  CEO of  ICC.   Mr  Richardson  stated  that  the

President of BCCI sought a letter from ICC that the appointment of a

nominee of CAG (which has been directed by this Court on 18 July 2016

in  terms  of  the  Committee’s  recommendations)  would  amount  to

Page 7

7

‘governmental  interference’ thereby  inviting  the  suspension  of  BCCI

from the membership of ICC.  Mr Shetty’s response was 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 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.”

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”.

6 In the  affidavit  which has  been filed by  the  President  of  BCCI

on 15 October 2016, there is a denial that any such request was made by

Page 8

8

him to  the  CEO of  ICC.   Paragraph  3  of  the  affidavit  contains  the

version of the President of what transpired at Dubai on 6/7 August 2016

during the course of a meeting convened by ICC:   

“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 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.”

7 Mr Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

BCCI  has  tendered  during  the  course  of  hearing  draft  minutes  of  a

Working Committee meeting of BCCI held on 22 August 2016.  The

draft  minutes  purportedly  contain  a  record  of  what  is  stated  to  have

Page 9

9

transpired between Mr Shashank Manohar, the Chairperson of ICC and

the President of BCCI at the meeting on 6 and 7 August 2016.  The

relevant part is extracted below:-

“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”.      

8 Prima facie, it appears from the response that was filed by BCCI

to the status report, that a clarification was sought by Mr Anurag Thakur

from Mr Shashank Manohar  on what  the  exact  status  would  be  if  a

nominee of CAG was inducted by BCCI as part of its management and

Page 10

10

whether it would amount to governmental interference.   The statement

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

Committee  amounted to  governmental  interference.   However, in  the

affidavit  which  has  since  been  filed  by  the  President  of  BCCI  in

pursuance  of  the  Court’s  directions  of  7  October  2016,  it  has  been

accepted that he had made a request to the Chairman of  ICC for issuing

a letter “clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI President”

(to the effect that the recommendations of the Committee for appointing

a  nominee  of  CAG would  amount  to  governmental  interference  and

might  invoke  an  action  for  suspension  from ICC).  Significantly, Mr

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.  

9 The draft minutes of the Working Committee purportedly dated 22

August  2016, a copy of which has been placed on the record, are in

tandem with the statement  made by Mr Thakur  on affidavit.   Prima

facie, it appears that the draft minutes were not before Mr Shetty when

he made a statement on behalf of BCCI in his response to the status

report.  If  the  draft  minutes  were  before  him,  it  would  be  natural  to

assume that the disclosure which has now emerged in pursuance of the

Page 11

11

order of this Court dated 7 October 2016 would have been contained in

the response submitted by Mr Shetty to the status report.  Mr Shetty has

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.   

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

Page 12

12

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 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  levelled  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

Page 13

13

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.

12 During  the  course  of  hearing,  a  grievance  has  been  made  on

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

suggested by the Committee “should be completed within a period of

four  months  or  at  best  six  months  from today”,  the  Committee  has

hastened the process by indicating timelines for completion even within

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

that the process of transition and implementation be completed within

four months or at best within six months, this Court left it open to the

Committee  to  draw “appropriate  timelines  for  implementation  of  the

recommendations” and to supervise  the implementation thereof.   The

Committee  which  was  entrusted  with  the  task  of  supervising  the

implementation process was permitted to lay down suitable timelines.

Page 14

14

The  process  of  implementation  requires  a  continuous  process  of

monitoring and supervision and it would be only reasonable to assume,

as did the Committee, that the process could not be completed in one

instalment.  Hence,  the  Committee  laid  down  timelines  for

implementation.   

13 Hence, the broad framework of time prescribed by this Court does

not preclude the Committee from specifying timelines.  On the contrary,

the  Committee  was  specifically  allowed  to  do  so  to  implement  the

judgment. The status report contains a record of proceedings before the

Committee dated 9 August 2016 which indicates that when the first set

of  timelines  was  handed  over to  BCCI’s Secretary  on 9 August 2016,

he stated before the Committee that a report of compliance would be

furnished by 25 August 2016.  Despite this, in the report dated 25 August

2016, submitted by the Secretary, BCCI to the Committee there appears

the following statement furnished by BCCI by way of a clarification at

the Working Committee meeting held on 22 August 2016:  

“2  The Members queried as regards to the status of  the review petition filed by the BCCI.  It was clarified to the members that if  the review petition as well  as  curative petition  was  dismissed,  the recommendations  of  the  Lodha Committee, save those as amended by the court would become binding”.

Page 15

15

14 The statement made on behalf of BCCI to the Working Committee

that it was only if the Review Petition, as well as Curative Petition were

to be dismissed that the recommendations of the Committee would be

binding  is  patently  misconceived.   The  recommendations  of  the

Committee were endorsed in a final judgment and order of this Court

dated 18 July 2016, subject to certain modifications.  The judgment of

this Court has to be implemented as it stands.   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 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

Page 16

16

beyond  the  parameters  set  by  this  Court  can  and  ought  to  be  urged

before the Committee in the first instance.   

16 During the course of the hearing, Shri Kapil Sibal,  learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of  BCCI has agreed to a course of action

whereby in the first instance, BCCI would establish its bona fides before

the Committee by demonstrating  the compliance made by it of those

recommendations  which  are  stated  to  have  been  fulfilled.  The

Committee as the body appointed by this Court to monitor and supervise

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

before the Committee on affidavit  their  statements of  the compliance

effected by BCCI thus far of those recommendations which have been

fulfilled.  The statement shall contain an elaboration of the manner in

which compliance has been made and the steps proposed to be taken to

fulfil the remaining directions of this Court.  The Committee is at liberty

to  verify  the  compliance  statements  filed  on  behalf  of  BCCI  by  its

President  and  Secretary.  Both  the  President  and  the  Secretary  shall

appear before the Committee in person, and explain the steps taken for

compliance and the course of action to be adopted hereafter.

Page 17

17

18 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of BCCI has stated

that in respect of some of the recommendations, where state associations

have not agreed to implement the recommendations of the Committee,

as  accepted  by  this  Court,  BCCI  will  make  a  genuine  endeavour  to

persuade the state associations to effectuate compliance.  Though BCCI

is in default and breach of the directions of this Court, in order to enable

it  to have an additional  opportunity to establish its  bona fides and to

secure compliance with the judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016,

we  grant  time  until  3  December  2016  for  the  purpose.   Besides

complying  with  the  direction  set  out  above  of  filing  statements  and

appearing before the Committee, BCCI shall report compliance before

this Court on 5 December 2016.   

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

contained in the previous order dated 7 October 2016. 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

Page 18

18

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.

However, certain additional directions are warranted in the interest of

maintaining transparency in the functioning of BCCI, having regard to

the sequence of events after 18 July 2016.

20 We accordingly issue the following additional directions:-

(i) BCCI  shall  forthwith  cease  and  desist  from making  any

disbursement of  funds for  any purpose whatsoever to any state

association until and unless the state association concerned adopts

a resolution undertaking to implement the recommendations of the

Committee as accepted by this Court in its judgment dated 18 July

2016.   After  such  a  resolution  is  passed  and  before  any

disbursement  of  funds  takes  place  to  the  state  association

concerned,  a  copy  of  the  resolution  shall  be  filed  before  the

Committee and before this Court, together with an affidavit of the

President  of  the  state  association  undertaking  to  abide  by  the

Page 19

19

reforms contained in the report of the Committee, as modified by

this  Court.   Any transfer  of  funds  shall  take  place to  the state

associations  which  have  accepted  these  terms  only  after

compliance as above is effected. This direction is in addition to

the  previous  direction  of  7  October  2016  in  regard  to  the

disbursement to and appropriation by the state associations;

(ii)  (a)  The Committee appointed by this Court is  requested to

appoint an independent auditor to scrutinise and audit the income

received and expenditure incurred by BCCI; (b) The auditor shall

also  oversee  the  tendering  process  that  will  hereinafter  be

undertaken by BCCI, as well as the award of contracts above a

threshold value to be fixed by the Committee;  (c) The award of

contracts by BCCI above the threshold fixed by the Committee

shall be subject to the prior approval of the Committee;  (d) The

Committee shall be at liberty to obtain the advice of the auditors

on the fairness of the tendering process which has been adopted

by BCCI and in regard to all relevant facts and circumstances; (e)

The Committee will determine whether a proposed contract above

the threshold value should or should not be approved; and (f) The

Committee will be at liberty to formulate the terms of engagement

and  reference  to  the  auditors  having  regard  to  the  above

Page 20

20

directions.   BCCI shall defray the costs, charges and expenses of

the auditors.  

(iii) The President and Secretary of BCCI shall within two weeks

from today  file  a  statement  on  affidavit  indicating  compliance

made by BCCI of those of the recommendations of the Committee

which have been complied with, the manner of compliance and

the  steps  adopted  for  securing  compliance  with  the  remaining

recommendations.   They  shall  appear  before  the  Committee  to

explain the manner of compliance. The President and Secretary,

BCCI  shall  also  keep  the  Committee  apprised  about  the  steps

taken pursuant to the statement recorded in paragraph 18 above.

(iv)  An affidavit of compliance shall be filed before this Court on

or  before  3  December  2016 by the  President  and Secretary  to

BCCI in terms of paragraphs 17 and 18 above; and

(v)  The Secretary to the Committee appointed by this Court shall

forward a copy of this order to Mr Shashank Manohar, Chairman

ICC to facilitate the observations contained in paragraph 11 of this

order.

Page 21

21

BCCI  shall  cooperate  with  the  Committee  and  with  the  auditors  by

granting,  in  particular,  full  access  to  records,  accounts  and  other

information as required to facilitate implementation of these directions.  

21 The hearing of the proceedings shall stand over to 5 December

2016.       

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

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

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

New Delhi October 21, 2016