[Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014]
Cricket Association of Bihar Vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.
[Civil Appeal No.4236 of 2014]
Cricket Association of Bihar Vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & ANR.
[Civil Appeal No. of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.34228 of 2014]
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Allegations of sporting frauds like match fixing and betting have for the past few years cast a cloud over the working of the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI). Cricket being more than just a sport for millions in this part of the world, accusations of malpractices and conflict of interests against those who not only hold positions of influence in the BCCI but also own franchises and teams competing in the IPL format have left many a cricketing enthusiasts and followers of the game worried and deeply suspicious about what goes on in the name of the game. There is no denying the fact that lowers the threshold of tolerance for any wrong doing higher is the expectation of the people, from the system. And cricket being not only a passion but a great unifying force in this country, a zero tolerance approach towards any wrong doing alone can satisfy the cry for cleansing.
3. These appeals arise out of two successive writ petitions filed in public interest by the appellant-Cricket Association of Bihar before the High Court of Bombay for several reliefs including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing BCCI to recall its order constituting a probe panel comprising two retired Judges of Madras High Court to enquire into the allegations of betting and spot fixing in the Indian Premier League (IPL) made among others against one Gurunath Meiyappan. The High Court has by its order dated 30th July, 2013 passed in PIL No.55 of 2013 granted that relief but declined a possible reconstitution of the panel.
Aggrieved, BCCI has assailed the order passed by the High Court in Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014. In the connected Civil Appeal No.4236 of 2014, Cricket Association of Bihar has prayed for further and consequential orders which according to the appellant could and indeed ought to have been passed by the High Court, inter alia, for removal of respondent No.2 from the post of President of BCCI and cancellation of the franchise favouring Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals for the IPL matches to be conducted in future. In Civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.34228 of 2014 the 4 association challenges the validity of Regulation 6.2.4 of the BCCI Regulations for Players, Team Officials, Managers, Umpires & Administrators (for short ‘BCCI Regulations’) and the order passed by the High Court dismissing PIL No.107 of 2013.
4. Cricket Association of Bihar is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 just as respondent – BCCI is a Society registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Registration of Societies Act 1975. Mr. N.Srinivisan – respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeal No.4236 of 2014 is the President of the Board besides being the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.3-India Cements Limited, a public Limited Company.
5. In a meeting held on 13th September, 2007, the working committee of the respondent-Board appears to have taken a decision to launch what came to be known as Indian Premier League (IPL) to be run by a Committee constituted by general body of the BCCI to be called IPL Governing 5 Council. In December 2007 the IPL Governing Council invited tenders for grant of IPL franchises on open competitive bidding basis, in which only corporate bodies were allowed to participate. India Cements Ltd. was one of those who participated in the auction for the Chennai franchise and emerged successful in the same. The team it assembled was christened Chennai Super Kings. Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited partly owned and promoted by respondent No.5 similarly emerged successful for the Jaipur Franchise and assembled a team called Rajasthan Royals. Franchise Agreements were, pursuant to the auction, signed by BCCI with the franchisees concerned.
6. On 27th September, 2008 Mr. N.Srinivasan was elected as the Secretary of the BCCI in a General Body Meeting. In the same meeting Regulation 6.2.4 of the IPL Regulations was amended to exclude from its operation events like IPL and Champions’ League twenty-20. We shall presently turn to Regulation 6.2.4 but before we do that we need to complete the factual narrative.
7. In April 2013, Special Cell, Delhi Police, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, is said to have received secret information that certain members of the underworld were involved in fixing of matches in the recently concluded edition of the IPL. FIR No.20 of 2013 was, on that information, registered by the Special Cell, Delhi Police, under Sections 420 and 120 B of the IPC and Mr. S. Sreesanth, Mr. Ajit Chandila and Mr. Ankit Chavan of the Rajasthan Royals alongwith 7 bookies detained for allegations of spot-fixing. Shortly thereafter Mr. Gurunathan Meiyappan, son-in-law of Mr. N.Srinivasan was also arrested by the Mumbai Police on 25th May, 2013 in a spot fixing/betting case.
Soon after the arrest on 26th May, 2013 came an announcement that a Commission comprising two members of the BCCI and one independent member would be constituted to enquire into allegations of betting and spot fixing. This was followed by nomination of two former Judges of the High Court of Madras and Shri Sanjay Jagdale as members of a Probe Commission to enquire into the allegations of betting and spot fixing. Shri Sanjay Jagdale, however, resigned as member of the Probe Commission leaving the two former Judges to complete the 7 probe. Mr. N.Srinivasan announced that he was stepping aside from the post of President of the BCCI until the probe was completed ostensibly because of the alleged involvement of his son-in-law in the betting and spot fixing racket.
8. It was in the above backdrop that the appellant- Association filed W.P. No.55 of 2013 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, inter alia, for a declaration that appointment of the two-member Probe Commission was ultra vires of the Rules and Regulations of the BCCI and for a mandamus directing constitution of a panel comprising retired Judges to hold an enquiry against among others Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan for his involvement in betting and spot fixing.
The petitioner further prayed for termination of the franchise agreement entered into between the BCCI, on the one hand, and Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals on the other. A mandamus directing institution of disciplinary proceedings against Mr. N.Srinivasan was also prayed for, besides a prayer for his suspension pending the probe and other proceedings. The appellant-Association in 8 addition prayed for a prohibition against Mr. N.Srinivisan restraining him from contesting the election for the post of President of BCCI in future and representing the BCCI in the International Cricket Council (ICC).
9. By its order dated 30th July, 2013, a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay declared that the Probe Commission set up by the BCCI was not validly constituted being in violation of the provisions of Rules 2.2 and 3 of Section 6 of the IPL Operational Rules. The High Court, however, declined to grant any further relief by way of constituting a panel to conduct an enquiry under the supervision of the High Court. The High Court was of the view that constitution of a Probe Committee under Section 6 of the IPL Operational Rules was the prerogative of the BCCI.
Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014 preferred by the BCCI assails the said order of the High Court to the extent it declares the constitution of the Probe Commission to be illegal and ultra vires of the relevant rules and regulations. The Cricket Association of Bihar has also, as noticed earlier, assailed the very same order in Civil Appeal No.4236 of 9 2014 to the extent it has declined to grant further and consequential relief to the appellant.
10. When this matter came up for hearing on 27th September, 2013 before a Bench comprising A.K. Patnaik and J.S. Khehar JJ., this Court permitted the Annual General Meeting of the respondent-BCCI to be held on 29th September, 2013 as scheduled and so also election to the post of President, subject to the condition that in case respondent No.2-Mr. N.Srinivisan got elected, he will not take charge until further orders. When the matter came up again on 8th October, 2013, this Court noted that although Mr. N.Srinivasan had been elected as the President of the Board yet a probe into the allegations of betting and spot fixing was necessary. A reading of order dated 8th October, 2013 passed by this Court would show that the constitution of the Probe Committee comprising Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, retired Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Nilay Dutt, Senior Advocate, Gauhati High Court was 10 passed with the consent of the parties. Justice Mukul Mudgal was appointed Chairman of the Probe Committee.
11. The Probe Committee started its proceedings in the right earnest and invited all such persons as had any information in their possession regarding the Terms of Reference to furnish such information to the Committee. It also interacted with Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj Kundara and the players against whom the BCCI had taken action for match fixing and spot fixing. Besides the Committee interacted with the law enforcement agencies, former players associated with IPL, personnel from the team management, eminent sports journalists and sport commentators, personnel from anti-corruption unit of the BCCI and ICC, personnel from the BCCI and the IPL Governing Body and persons whose name featured in the documents pertaining to the Terms of Reference. Based on the enquiries made by it from all concerned, the Committee submitted a report dated 9th February, 2014, in which the Committee arrived at the following conclusions: 11
(i) That Gurunath Meiyappan formed an integral part of Chennai Super Kings and most persons viewed him as the face of the team, though de-jure ownership vested in India Cements Ltd.
(ii) That Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official within the meaning of IPL Operational Rules if not de facto owner of CSK.
(iii) That Gurunath Meiyappan had knowledge of or was in a position to easily access sensitive team information, team strategies knowledge about match conditions etc. which knowledge was outside the purview of an ordinary person following the game of cricket.
(iv) That Gurunath Meiyappan was also a participant under IPL Anti-corruption Code hence IPL Rules and Regulations were squarely applicable to him.
(v) That Gurunath Meiyappan was in regular touch with bookies and punters.
(vi) That several calls were traced between Gurunath Meiyappan and Vindoo Dara Singh who was himself a punter in close proximity with several 12 other bookies, evident from the telephonic transcripts produced by the Bombay Police.
(vii) That Mr. Ramesh Vyas and Jupiter were acting for Vindoo Dara Singh who was also placing bets for certain IPL stakeholders and actors including Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan. Mr. Meiyappan was in close contact with Mr. Vikram Agarwal who is a hotelier and alleged punter operating from Chennai as revealed by call record details produced by the Chennai Police in Crime No.1 of 2013 registered by the CBCID Branch.
(viii) That Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan would regularly place bets in IPL matches both in favour of his team (i.e. CSK) and against his team – a fact established from call records produced by the Mumbai Police.
(ix) That Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan would place bets through Vindoo Dara Singh and such bets were even placed during the course of IPL match as revealed by transcripts produced by Mumbai Police.
(x) That in one instance Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan made certain predictions to Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh regarding the runs that would be scored in a match between CSK and Rajasthan Royals held on 12th May, 2013 at Jaipur. According to Mr. Meiyappan’s prediction that CSK would score 130- 140 runs came true as CSK actually scored 141 runs only.
12. The Probe Committee on the above findings held Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan guilty of betting which in its opinion was accentuated by his position in the CSK. What is important is that the Probe Committee held that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan had in his acts of betting the implicit approval of the franchisee owner India Cements thereby bringing the team to disrepute and violating Sections 2.2.1 and 2.14 of the IPL Operational Rules besides Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.3 of the IPL Anti-Corruption Code and Articles 2.4.4 of the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials.
13. The Committee also held that franchisee owner CSK was responsible for its failure to ensure that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan complied with BCCI Anti-Corruption Code, IPL Operational Rules and IPL Regulations. The franchisee’s actions were on that basis held to be in violation of Section 4.4.1 of the IPL Operational Rules and Clause 11.3 of the franchise’s agreement. The Committee summed up its conclusion regarding the investigation against Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and India Cements Ltd. the owner of ICL in the following passage:
“Thus, the Committee is of the view that for the acts of betting by Mr. Meiyappan, which is further accentuated by the position he held in CSK, which was held by Mr. Meiyappan with the implicit approval of the franchisee owner India Cements, Mr. Meiyappan is in violation of Sections 2.2.1 and 2.14 the IPL Operational Rules for bringing the game in disrepute, Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.2. and 2.2.3 of the IPL Anti Corruption Code for his acts of betting and Articles 2.4.4 of the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials, for bring disrepute to the game of cricket.
The said illegal acts further stand accentuated in light of his position/role in CSK. The Committee is also of the opinion that the franchisee owner of CSK is responsible for failing to ensure Mr. Meiyappan (Team Officials) had complied with the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code, IPL Operational rules, IPL Regulations and hence the franchisee’s actions are in violation of Section 4.4.1 of the IPL Operational Rules and Clause 11.3 of the franchises agreement.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. As regards the allegations of betting and spot-fixing in IPL made against Mr. Raj Kundra, the Committee opined that further and serious investigation was required to be conducted into the said allegations for the allegations of betting if proved against Mr. Kundra and his wife Ms. Shilpa Shetty, would constitute a serious infraction of the provisions of IPL Operational Rules, the Anti-Corruption Code and the Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials. The Committee also examined the allegations of match/spot fixing made against several players and noticed that the BCCI had conducted an inquiry into the allegations and found the same to be proved. The Committee was, however, of the view that the disciplinary action taken by BCCI against the delinquent players was adequate and satisfactory.
15. Having said that the Committee referred to allegations of sporting frauds made before it during its interaction with several persons connected with the game. The Committee placed before this Court the names of persons against whom 16 such allegations were made in a sealed envelope. The Committee also mentioned other issues including the issue of “conflict of interest” between Mr. N.Srinivasan as the BCCI President on the one hand and CEO of India Cements Ltd. on the other. The Committee concluded its report by making certain recommendations that would, in its opinion, help remove the malaise of spot/match fixing and detect sporting frauds by BCCI’s Investigation Wing.
16. The report submitted by the Probe Committee was then considered by this Court in its order dated 16th May, 2014 by which this Court permitted the Probe Committee to enquire into the allegations made against those named in the sealed cover filed before the Court by the Committee including Mr. N. Srinivasan. This Court also provided the necessary manpower for a quick and effective investigation by constituting an investigation team with the direction that the team shall have the power to investigate, require attendance of witnesses and record their depositions and the power to search and seize apart from other powers necessary for conducting the investigation except the power to arrest.
The 17 Committee filed an interim report dated 1st September, 2014, and wound up its proceedings by its third and final report dated 1st November, 2014 in which it took note of the scientific evaluation of Gurunath Meiyappan’s recorded voice which revealed that the recorded voice was indeed that of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan. In a separate report submitted by Mr. Nilay Dutta, the third member of the Probe Committee, Shri Dutta had observed that for the Committee to arrive at a conclusive finding as regards the voice alleged to be that of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, a scientific evaluation was necessary. The Committee’s final report took note of the scientific evaluation and recorded a unanimous conclusion that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan had actually indulged in betting in IPL matches. It, however, found no material to show that Gurunath Meiyappan was involved in match fixing.
17. As regards Mr. Raj Kundra, the Committee came to the conclusion that Mr. Kundra had indulged in betting in violation of BCCI Regulations and IPL Anti-Corruption Code. The Committee further came to the conclusion that N. Srinivasan was not involved in match fixing activity nor was 18 he involved in preventing investigation into match fixing. The Committee held that although Mr. N. Srinivasan was aware of the violation of the players’ code, by individual No.3 yet no action was taken against him by Mr. Srinivasan or any other official who was aware of the infraction.
18. Copies of the report except the portion that related to findings qua the players were made available to counsel for the parties to give them an opportunity to respond to the same. Since Mr. Raj Kundra and Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan were not parties to these proceedings, this Court issued notice to them enclosing and made copies of the reports available to them to enable them to respond to the findings recorded by the Committee. That opportunity was usefully utilized by all the parties concerned by filing their respective responses.
19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The following questions fall for our determination:
(1) Whether the respondent-Board of Cricket Control of India is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 and if 19 it is not, whether it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (See Paras 20 to 30)
(2) Whether Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were ‘team officials’ of their respective IPL teams – Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals? If so, whether allegations of betting levelled against them stand proved?(See Paras 31 to 46)
(3) If question No.2 is answered in the affirmative, what consequential action in the nature of punishment is permissible under the relevant Rules and Regulations, and against whom? (See Paras 47 to 62)
(4) Whether allegations of cover up, levelled against Mr. N. Srinivasan stand proved. If so, to what effect? (See Paras 63 to 65)
(5) Whether Regulation 6.2.4 to the extent it permits administrators to have commercial interest in the IPL, Champions League and Twenty-20 events is legally bad? (See Paras 66 to 98)
(6) Whether allegations levelled against Mr. Sundar Raman, Chief Operating Officer IPL, stand proved? If so, to what effect? (See Paras 99 to 105) 20
(7) What orders and directions need be passed in the light of the discussions and answers to questions 1 to 5 above? (See Paras 106 to 109) We propose to deal with the questions ad seriatim:
Re: Question No.1:
20. Article 12 of the Constitution of India gives an inclusive definition to the expression ‘State’, and says that for purposes of Part III of the Constitution the expression ‘State’ includes the Parliament of India, the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and Local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. A long line of decisions of this Court have examined and interpreted the expression appearing in Article 12 with a view to determining whether or not a given entity is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12.
It is unnecessary to refer to all such decisions pronounced over the past few decades not only because the law is by now fairly well settled by Constitution Bench decisions of this Court but also because the question whether or not BCCI is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 21 12 may not make any material difference to the case at hand in view of the admitted position that respondent-BCCI does discharge several important public functions which make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We may all the same refer to a few landmarks on the judicial landscape only as a reminder to what is settled and binding upon us.
21. In Sukhdev and Ors. etc. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr. etc. (1975) 1 SCC 421, one of the questions that fell for considerations was whether an employee of statutory corporation like Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act 1959, Indian Finance Corporation, established under the Indian Finance Corporation Act, 1948 and the Life Insurance Corporation under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, was entitled to claim protection of Articles 14 and 16 against the Corporation.
A Constitution bench of this Court answered the question in the affirmative by a majority of 4:1. Mathew J., in his concurring judgement referred to Marsh v. Alabama (3) 326 U.S. 501: 19 L. 22 ed. 265 to hold that even where a corporation is privately performing a public function it is bound by the constitutional standard applicable to all State actions. Marsh v. Alabama (supra), it is noteworthy, arose out of a prosecution launched against a Jehovah’s witness for her refusal to leave the side walk where she was distributing religious pamphlets.
She was fined five dollars but aggrieved by her prosecution she approached the Supreme Court to argue that the corporation that owned the town had denied the right of religious liberty available to Marsh. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the contention and declared that administration of public bodies like a town through private entities were tantamount to carrying out functions of a public body. Private right of the corporation could, therefore, be exercised only within constitutional limitations. Black J. speaking for the Court observed:
“The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation”.
22. Justice Frankfurter in his concurring opinion simply added that the function discharged by the corporation as a municipal corporation was a public function hence subject to State Regulation.
23. Borrowing support from the above decision and several others this Court in Sukhdev’s case (supra) held: “97. Another factor which might be considered is whether the operation is an important public function. The combination of State aid and the furnishing of an important public service may result in a conclusion that the operation should be classified as a State agency. If a given function is of such public importance and so closely related to governmental functions as to be classified as a governmental agency, then even the presence or absence of State financial aid might be irrelevant in making a finding of State action. If the function does not fall within such a description, then mere addition of State money would not influence the conclusion.
101. In America, corporations or associations, private in character, but dealing with public rights, have already been held subject to constitutional standards. Political parties, for example, even though they are not statutory organisations, and are in form private clubs, are within this category. So also are labour unions on which statutes confer the right of collective bargaining….
102. Institutions engaged in matters of high public interest or performing public functions are by virtue of the nature of the function performed government agencies35. Activities which are too fundamental to the society are by definition too important not to be 24 considered government function. This demands the delineation of a theory which requires Government to provide all persons with all fundamentals of life and the determinations of aspects which are fundamental. The State today has an affirmative duty of seeing that all essentials of life are made available to all persons. The task of the State today is to make possible the achievement of a good life both by removing obstacles in the path of such achievements and in assisting individual in realising his ideal of self-perfection. ….
24. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489 this Court held that while a corporation may be created by a statute or incorporated under a law such as the Companies Act, 1956, or the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the question that often arises is as to when does the corporation become an instrumentality or agency of the Government and what are the tests to determine whether a corporation is or is not such an instrumentality or agency. While holding that there is no cut and dried formula that can provide an answer, this Court referred to American decisions in Evans v. Newton 382 US 296 15 L.Ed.-2nd 373, Ch 614 = 1963 1 All. E.R. 590 and New York v. United States 326 US 572 to declare that if the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to 25 governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of the State. This Court said:
“16. There is also another factor which may be regarded as having a bearing on this issue and it is whether the operation of the corporation is an important public function. It has been held in the United States in a number of cases that the concept of private action must yield to a concept of State action where public functions are being performed. Vide Arthur S. Miller: “The Constitutional Law of the ‘Security State’”. It was pointed out by Douglas, J., in Evans v. Newton that “when private individuals or groups are endowed by the State with powers or functions governmental in nature, they become agencies or instrumentalities of the State”.
Of course, with the growth of the welfare State, it is very difficult to define what functions are governmental and what are not, because, as pointed out by Villmer, L.J., in Pfizer v. Ministry of Health there has been since mid-Victorian times, “a revolution in political thought and a totally different conception prevails today as to what is and what is not within the functions of Government”. Douglas, J., also observed to the same effect in New York v. United States: “A State’s project is as much a legitimate governmental activity whether it is traditional, or akin to private enterprise, or conducted for profit.” Cf. Helvering v. Gerhardt14.
A State may deem it as essential to its economy that it own and operate a railroad, a mill, or an irrigation system as it does to own and operate bridges, street lights, or a sewage disposal plant. What might have been viewed in an earlier day as an improvident or even dangerous extension of State activities may today be deemed indispensable. It may be noted that besides the so-called traditional functions, the modern State operates a multitude of public enterprises and discharges a host of other public functions.
If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to 26 governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. This is precisely what was pointed out by Mathew, J., in Sukhdev v. Bhagatram where the learned Judge said that “institutions engaged in matters of high public interest or performing public functions are by virtue of the nature of the functions performed government agencies. Activities which are too fundamental to the society are by definition too important not to be considered government functions”.
(emphasis supplied)
25. In Ajay Hasia and ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722, this Court noted the constitutional philosophy of a democratic socialistic republic requiring the government to undertake a multitude of socioeconomic operations, and the practical advantages of functioning through the legal device of a corporation for a myriad of commercial and economic activities.
But any such contrivance of carrying on such activities cannot, declared this Court, exonerate the government of its basic obligation to respect the fundamental rights of the citizens for otherwise it would be the easiest thing for any government to assign to a plurality of corporations almost every State business and thereby cheat the people of this country of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under the 27 Constitution. The Court went on to enunciate certain tests applicable for determining whether an entity is an “instrumentality or the agency of the State”, an expression that does not figure in Article 12 of the Constitution but which would constitute an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution.
26. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 111 a seven- Judge Bench of this Court was examining whether Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was a State within the meaning of Articles 12 and 13(2) of the Constitution. The Court decided by a majority of 5:2 that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia’s case (supra) were not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any of them it must be considered to be a ‘State’. The question in each individual case, declared this Court, would be whether on facts the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive to make any such body State within the 28 meaning of Article 12. Mere regulatory control whether under statute or otherwise would not be sufficient. Overruling an earlier decision of this Court in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 485, this Court held that Council of Scientific and Industrial Research even when registered as Society was ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12.
27. In Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 741, this Court had an occasion to consider the role and the nature of functions being discharged by the BCCI. This Court held that the Boards control over the sport of cricket was deep and pervasive and that it exercised enormous public functions, which made it obligatory for the Board to follow the doctrine of ‘fairness and good faith’. This Court said:
“80. The Board is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. It enjoys a monopoly status as regards regulation of the sport of cricket in terms of its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. It controls the sport of cricket and lays down the law therefor. It inter alia enjoys benefits by way of tax exemption and right to use stadia at nominal annual rent. It earns a huge revenue not only by selling tickets to viewers but also selling right to exhibit films live on TV and 29 broadcasting the same.
Ordinarily, its full members are the State associations except Association of Indian Universities, Railway Sports Control Board and Services Sports Control Board. As a member of ICC, it represents the country in the international for a. It exercises enormous public functions. It has the authority to select players, umpires and officials to represent the country in the international fora. It exercises total control over the players, umpires and other officers. The Rules of the Board clearly demonstrate that without its recognition no competitive cricket can be hosted either within or outside the country. Its control over the sport of competitive cricket is deeply pervasive and complete.
81. In law, there cannot be any dispute that having regard to the enormity of power exercised by it, the Board is bound to follow the doctrine of “fairness” and “good faith” in all its activities. Having regard to the fact that it has to fulfil the hopes and aspirations of millions, it has a duty to act reasonably. It cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously. As the Board controls the profession of cricketers, its actions are required to be judged and viewed by higher standards.”
(emphasis is ours)
28. The question whether the respondent-BCCI is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 fell directly for consideration of this Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 649. By a majority of 3:2 this Court ruled that respondent-BCCI was not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. This Court held that the Board was not created by any statute, nor was a part of the share capital held by the Government. There was practically no 30 financial assistance given to the Board by the Government, and even when the Board did enjoy a monopoly status in the field of cricket such status was not State conferred or State protected.
So also there is no deep and pervasive State control. The control, if any, is only regulatory in nature as applicable to other similar bodies. The control is not specifically exercised under any special statute applicable to the Board. All functions of the Board are not public functions nor are they closely related to governmental functions. The Board is not created by transfer of a government-owned corporation and was an autonomous body. Relying upon the tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas’s case (supra), this Court held that the Board was not financially, functionally or administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government so as to bring it within the expression ‘State’ appearing in Article 12 of the Constitution. Having said that this Court examined whether the Board was discharging public duties in the nature of State functions. Repelling the contention that the functions being discharged by the Board were public duties in the 31 nature of State functions which would make the Board a State within the meaning of Article 12 this Court observed:
“29. It was then argued that the Board discharges public duties which are in the nature of State functions. Elaborating on this argument it was pointed out that the Board selects a team to represent India in international matches. The Board makes rules that govern the activities of the cricket players, umpires and other persons involved in the activities of cricket. These, according to the petitioner, are all in the nature of State functions and an entity which discharges such functions can only be an instrumentality of State, therefore, the Board falls within the definition of State for the purpose of Article 12.
Assuming that the abovementioned functions of the Board do amount to public duties or State functions, the question for our consideration is: would this be sufficient to hold the Board to be a State for the purpose of Article 12? While considering this aspect of the argument of the petitioner, it should be borne in mind that the State/Union has not chosen the Board to perform these duties nor has it legally authorised the Board to carry out these functions under any law or agreement. It has chosen to leave the activities of cricket to be controlled by private bodies out of such bodies’ own volition (selfarrogated). In such circumstances when the actions of the Board are not actions as an authorised representative of the State, can it be said that the Board is discharging State functions?
The answer should be no. In the absence of any authorisation, if a private body chooses to discharge any such function which is not prohibited by law then it would be incorrect to hold that such action of the body would make it an instrumentality of the State. The Union of India has tried to make out a case that the Board discharges these functions because of the de facto recognition granted by it to the Board under the guidelines framed by it, but the Board has denied the same. In this regard we must hold that the Union of India has failed to prove that there is any recognition by the Union of India under the guidelines framed by it, and that the Board is 32 discharging these functions on its own as an autonomous body.”
29. Having said that this Court recognized the fact that the Board was discharging some duties like the Selection of Indian Cricket Team, controlling the activities of the players which activities were akin to public duties or State functions so that if there is any breach of a constitutional or statutory obligation or the rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to seek redress under the ordinary law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which is much wider than Article 32. This Court observed:
“31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved in the game of cricket. These activities can be said to be akin to public duties or State functions and if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a petition under Article 32. But that does not mean that the violator of such right would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a State. Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for the violation of a right of a citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not available, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is much wider than Article 32.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. The majority view thus favours the view that BCCI is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 even when it is not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. The rationale underlying that view if we may say with utmost respect lies in the “nature of duties and functions” which the BCCI performs. It is common ground that the respondent-Board has a complete sway over the game of cricket in this country. It regulates and controls the game to the exclusion of all others. It formulates rules, regulations norms and standards covering all aspect of the game. It enjoys the power of choosing the members of the national team and the umpires.
It exercises the power of disqualifying players which may at times put an end to the sporting career of a person. It spends crores of rupees on building and maintaining infrastructure like stadia, running of cricket academies and Supporting State Associations. It frames pension schemes and incurs expenditure on coaches, trainers etc. It sells broadcast and telecast rights and collects admission fee to venues where the matches are played. All these activities are undertaken with the tacit 34 concurrence of the State Government and the Government of India who are not only fully aware but supportive of the activities of the Board.
The State has not chosen to bring any law or taken any other step that would either deprive or dilute the Board’s monopoly in the field of cricket. On the contrary, the Government of India have allowed the Board to select the national team which is then recognized by all concerned and applauded by the entire nation including at times by the highest of the dignitaries when they win tournaments and bring laurels home. Those distinguishing themselves in the international arena are conferred highest civilian awards like the Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri apart from sporting awards instituted by the Government. Such is the passion for this game in this country that cricketers are seen as icons by youngsters, middle aged and the old alike.
Any organization or entity that has such pervasive control over the game and its affairs and such powers as can make dreams end up in smoke or come true cannot be said to be undertaking any private activity. The functions of the Board are clearly public functions, which, till such time the State intervenes to 35 takeover the same, remain in the nature of public functions, no matter discharged by a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act.
Suffice it to say that if the Government not only allows an autonomous/private body to discharge functions which it could in law takeover or regulate but even lends its assistance to such a nongovernment body to undertake such functions which by their very nature are public functions, it cannot be said that the functions are not public functions or that the entity discharging the same is not answerable on the standards generally applicable to judicial review of State action. Our answer to question No.1, therefore, is in the negative, qua, the first part and affirmative qua the second. BCCI may not be State under Article 12 of the Constitution but is certainly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Re: Question No.2:
31. The Probe Committee, on an interpretation of the provisions of the relevant rules and the material placed before it, recorded a specific finding that Gurunath 36 Meiyappan was working/associated with the IPL as team official of the Chennai Super Kings. The Committee further held that for the operation of the relevant Rules and Regulations it made no difference whether Gurunath Meiyappan was the owner or simply a team official of CSK. That is because so long as Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official, which the Committee found he was, the consequences of his acts of betting would flow even when he was not the owner, or the perceived owner of the CSK.
That Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official of CSK owned by India Cements Ltd. was not disputed by either India Cements Ltd. or any other party appearing before us. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, however, declined to commit himself to any stand on that aspect. When asked if his client was a team official of CSK, Mr. Luthra claimed the right to remain silent as his client was being prosecuted in a Court at Mumbai for betting.
We will concede to Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan the right to silence in view of the pendency of the prosecution launched against him. That does not, however, prevent the Court from examining whether Gurunath 37 Meiyappan was a team official for purposes of disciplinary action permissible under the relevant rules and regulations. We may hasten to add that our examination of that issue will be without prejudice to Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan’s right to claim that he was not a team official if at all the said question arises for consideration in the criminal trial pending against him, nor shall our opinion on the subject be taken as binding upon the criminal court where the question can be examined independently.
32. Having said that we find that the Probe Committee has correctly appreciated the facts as emerging from the documents and the depositions of witnesses recorded by it and rightly come to the conclusion that Gurunath Meiyappan was a team official of CSK. That is so especially when India Cements Ltd. who owns the team made a candid admission before us that Gurunath Meiyappan was indeed a team official within the meaning of that expression under the rules. We, therefore, see no real, much less compelling reason, for us to disagree or reverse the finding recorded by the Probe Committee on that aspect.
33. The Probe Committee has on the basis of the material available to it further held that Gurunath Meiyappan was indulging in betting. That finding was not seriously assailed before us by Mr. Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on his behalf. Mr. Luthra’s concern was that since Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan was being prosecuted, any specific stance that he may take is likely to prejudice him at the trial in the criminal case. We have, however, made it clear and we do so again that any finding as to the involvement of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan in betting activities recorded by the Probe Committee or by this Court shall remain confined to the present proceedings which are addressing the limited question whether any administrative/disciplinary action needs to be taken against those accused of such activities.
Having said so, we must make it clear that given the nature of the proceedings entrusted to the Probe Committee and the standard of proof applicable to the same, we see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Probe Committee that Gurunath Meiyappan was indeed indulging in betting. The material assembled in the course of the investigation by the Probe Committee provides a reasonably 39 safe basis for holding that the accusations made against Gurunath Meiyappan stood established on a preponderance of probabilities.
We are at any rate not sitting in appeal against the findings of a Domestic Tribunal set up to enquire into the allegations of misconduct levelled against a team official of a participating team. We are not, therefore, reappraising the material that has been assembled by the Probe Committee and relied upon to support its finding. The finding is by no means without basis or perverse to call for our interference with the same.
34. That brings us to the findings recorded against Mr. Raj Kundra, whose part ownership and accreditation as a team official of Rajasthan Royal was not disputed before us. In its report dated 9th February, 2014, the Probe Committee had referred to the statement of Mr. Umesh Goenka, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by a Delhi Court in which the said Mr. Goenka had stated that Mr. Raj Kundra used to indulge in betting in IPL matches through him. The Probe Committee opined that the allegations levelled against Mr. Raj Kundra and his wife Ms. Shilpa Shetty required to be 40 investigated further.
The Committee held that if the allegations of betting were found proved against Mr. Raj Kundra and his wife Shilpa Shetty the same would constitute serious infraction of the IPL Operational Rules, the IPL Anti- Corruption Code and the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Official. The Committee observed: “The Committee is thus of the view that if the allegations of betting against Mr. Raj Kundra and Ms. Shetty who are part of Rajasthan Royals, stand proved the same would constitute a serious infraction of Sections 2.2.1 and 2.14 of the IPL Operational Rules for bringing the game in disrepute, Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the IPL Anti Corruption Code for acts of betting and Articles 2.4.4 of the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials, for bring disrepute to the game of cricket.”
35. A concurring report submitted by Mr. Nilay Dutta the third member of the Probe Committee also expressed a similar view when it said: “There seems to have been an effort to cover up the involvement of Mr. Raj Kundra in betting. In terms of the regulations in force of the BCCI, even legal betting is not permitted on the part of an owner of a franchisee. No benefit would accrue to Mr. Raj Kundra by an attempt to show that bets were placed through legal betting methods in other countries. There are materials on record which justify an appropriate investigation to ascertain the culpability of Mr. Raj Kundra and his wife Ms. Shilpa Shetty in placing bets as owner of a franchisee in IPL. Any such culpability on the 41 part of the Kundras would fasten liability on the franchisee, Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited and it would be incumbent to ascertain such liability of the franchisee for purposes of appropriate sanctions under the Operational Rules and/or the Franchise Agreement.
The Committee understands that the suspension imposed on Mr. Raj Kundra by the BCCI is still in force. The BCCI must take a zero tolerance position as regards corruption in cricket and any possible violation of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code and the Operational Rules by any person. It goes without saying that Mr. Raj Kundra and his wife Ms. Shilpa Shetty Kundra were owners as per the Franchise Agreement and accredited as such under the IPL Operational Rules. They are Team officials within the meaning of the said Rules. Being Team officials they are subject to the Code of conduct for Players and Team Officials prohibiting betting in course of IPL matches and would face appropriate sanctions under the Operational Rules. It would be in fitness of things that pending final determination of the culpability of the Kundras, they be kept suspended from participating in any activity of the BCCI including the IPL matches in view of the materials on record.”
36. This Court taking note of the observations made by the Probe Committee not only directed further investigation into the allegations against Mr. Raj Kundra but also provided necessary support to the Probe Committee to do so effectively. The Committee has on the basis of the said further investigation and enquiry come to the conclusion that Mr. Raj Kundra was a ‘team official’, a ‘player support personnel’ and ‘participant’ within the meaning of the relevant rules and that he had indulged in betting.
37. The Committee has, while dealing with the case of Mr. Raj Kundra, referred to as Individual No.11 in the said report observed: “Individual 11: This individual was in touch with the bookies about betting and thus by not reporting contact with the bookie has violated BCCI/IPL Anti- Corruption Code. The Committee also found that the investigation against this individual was abruptly and without reason stopped by the Rajasthan Police upon receiving the case papers from Delhi Police. The Committee found that a friend of individual 11 was a known punter. The said punter has given a section 164 statement to the effect that he was placing bets on behalf of individual 11. Individual 11 had introduced him (punter) to another bookie who dealt with larger stakes. Section 161 statement made by another player confirmed that individual 11 introduced him to a bookie. Materials on record indicate that individual 11 was placing bets or was at the minimum standing guarantee for his punter friend. These infractions also violate BCCI/IPL Anti- Corruption Code.”
38. Appearing for Mr. Raj Kundra, Mr. Shakher Naphade, learned senior counsel, argued that the report submitted by the Probe Committee could at best be taken as a preliminary report. A proper enquiry into the allegations made against Mr. Raj Kundra shall have to be separately conducted in terms of the relevant rules and regulations. In support of that contention he placed reliance upon the disciplinary procedure prescribed under Rule 6.2.2 of the IPL Operational 43 Rules which postulates establishment of a “Disciplinary Procedure Commission” to hear and adjudicate upon any complaint alleging any breach or misconduct under the regulations. In terms of Rule 6.2.2 the Commission has to comprise three members of IPL Code of Behaviour Committee selected by BCCI.
The Commission is in terms of Rule 6.2.4 empowered to investigate any breach of the regulations or any Player Contract by any person subject to the Operational Rules. Rule 6.3.1 prescribes the complaint procedure which is according to the learned counsel mandatory especially when Rule 6.3.8 requires the hearing to be conducted in a fair manner and in consonance with the principles of natural justice including the right to call and to question and examine witnesses in person or by telephone or video conference where necessary.
Reliance was placed upon Rule 6.3.19 to argue that standard of proof in support of the complaint shall be whether “the Commission is comfortably satisfied” bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations made regarding the ‘commission of the offence’ and that the standard of proof in all cases shall be considered on a sliding scale from, at a minimum, a mere 44 balance of probability upto proof beyond a reasonable doubt from the least serious to the most serious offences.
It was contended that the person found guilty is then entitled to file an appeal before the Appeal Commission established under Section 6.5.4 consisting upto three members to hear and decide the appeal. This procedure, it was argued by Mr. Naphade, could not be deviated from as the rules were binding upon the parties concerned. Reliance in support was placed on the decisions of this Court in T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No.363 S.C. Belgaum and Ors. (AIR 1963 SC 1144), Ambalal Sarabhai and Ors. v. Phiroz H. Anita (AIR 1939 Bombay 35) and Lennox Arthur Patrick O’ Reilly and Ors. v. Cyril Cuthbert Gittens (AIR 1949 PC 313).
39. On behalf of Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Ltd. it was argued by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel that there was no direct allegation against the said company and that the findings recorded by the Probe Committee that Mr. Raj Kundra was the owner of Rajasthan Royals was not wholly correct inasmuch as Raj Kundra and his family own 45 just about 11% equity in the holding company of respondent No.4-Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Ltd. Having said that Mr. Desai fairly conceded that Raj Kundra was duly accredited and doubtless a ‘team official’ in terms of IPL Operational Rules and also ‘Player Support Personnel’ and Participant in terms of the IPL Anti-Corruption Code.
Mr. Desai, however, assailed the findings recorded by Justice Mudgal Committee that Mr. Raj Kundra had indulged in betting in IPL matches and argued that the report was vague and unsustainable against Mr. Raj Kundra more so against Rajasthan Royals. It was argued by him that Mr. Raj Kundra was never a part of the management directly or indirectly and had never participated in the management decisions including decisions regarding the purchase of players or the strategy adopted by the franchisee or its team. No notice was, according to Mr. Desai, served upon respondent No.4-company although Mr. Raj Kundra was summoned and examined by the Probe Committee.
According to the learned counsel, Justice Mudgal Committee had only completed the first stage process of investigation leaving the second stage ‘fact finding’ and the third stage ‘adjudication’ issues open. It was contended that 46 even if Mr. Raj Kundra was held to be guilty of betting, the question whether any punishment/sanctions could be imposed upon a franchisee will have to be considered in the totality of the circumstances having regard to the fact that other promoters of the company that owns Rajasthan Royals need not be punished for the misconduct of one of the promoters holding only 11% equity. The question of proportionality of the sanction/punishment shall also have to be kept in mind argued Mr. Desai.
40. There is no gainsaying that the IPL Operational Rules provide for what is described as ‘disciplinary and complaint procedure’ to be followed in regard to the complaints and/or breaches of the regulations and/or charges of misconduct levelled against anyone connected with the IPL. This procedure includes establishment of a ‘Disciplinary Procedure Commission’ to hear and decide such matters. The Commission is in terms of Rule 6.2.2 to comprise three members of the IPL Code of Behaviour Committee to be selected by the BCCI.
It is also clear from Rules 6.3.1 to 6.3.21 that the Commission is required to follow a fair and 47 reasonable procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice. In terms of Rule 6.3.19 standard of proof can vary between balance of probability and proof beyond a reasonable doubt depending upon the seriousness of the allegations being examined by the Commission. What is important is that the Commission is not in terms of Regulation 6.3.20 bound by strict rules of evidence and that facts relating to any offence can be established by any reliable means including admissions. This procedure can and indeed ought to be followed in cases where there is no real or compelling justification for a departure. Two distinct aspects all the same need be kept in mind in the case at hand.
The first is that even the BCCI had not adhered to the prescribed procedure in the present case. Instead of constituting a ‘Disciplinary Procedure Commission’ comprising three members of IPL Code of Behaviour Committee, the BCCI had appointed a three-member Committee comprising two former Judges of the High Court of Madras with Mr. Jagdale as the third member. The departure came ostensibly because of a public hue and cry over betting by those owning the participating teams. The 48 situation was in that view extraordinary which called for an extraordinary approach. A Committee comprising two former Judges of the High Court of Madras was BCCI’s response to the extraordinary situation with Mr. Jagdale as the third member.
The Probe Committee was reduced to two members after Mr. Jagdale decided to resign, but the Committee was asked by the Board to continue and complete the probe even with its reduced strength. This was a conscious departure by the BCCI from the procedure laid down by the IPL Operational Rules which was faulted by the High Court of Bombay in the writ petition filed by the appellant-association. When the matter travelled to this Court the seriousness of the allegations and the ramifications involved led to the setting up of a High Powered Probe Committee in place of the Disciplinary Procedure Commission contemplated by the IPL Operational Rules and Regulations.
The whole purpose behind setting up of the Probe Committee was to make the entire process of investigation and enquiry into the allegations credible. The Probe Committee headed by a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was never intended to 49 conduct a preliminary investigation as was suggested by M/s Naphade and Desai. It was on the contrary understood by all concerned to be a substitute for the Disciplinary Procedure Commission under the Rules empowered to examine the allegations and record findings. It is wholly wrong to suggest that the report of such a High Powered Probe Committee could be trivialised by treating it as a preliminary investigation that could lead to no more than initiation of proceedings before the Disciplinary Procedure Commission envisaged by Rule 6.2.2 of the Rules mentioned above.
41. The second aspect is that the Probe Committee set up by the BCCI had expressed its inability to do anything in the matter on account of absence of any material to support the allegations appearing in the press. The BCCI had, for all intents and purposes, treated that finding to be conclusive giving a quietus to the controversy. It was not as though the finding of the Committee comprising two former Judges of the Madras High Court was meant to be some kind of a preliminary report which would require scrutiny or 50 examination by the Disciplinary Procedure Commission before a clean chit was given to the individuals concerned.
If that be so, it is difficult to countenance the argument that IPL Operational Rules had any further role to play in the matter of an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the persons concerned. It is equally difficult to appreciate how the significance of the reports submitted by the Probe Committee set up by this Court could be undermined simply because the IPL Operational Rules provide for a Disciplinary Procedure Commission with a particular composition. We have in that view no hesitation in rejecting the contention urged by M/s. Naphade and Desai that the procedure prescribed by the IPL Operational Rules must be followed despite all that has transpired till now or that the report submitted by Justice Mudgal Committee was of no value except that it could provided a basis for setting the Disciplinary Procedure into motion.
We need to remember that the direction for appointment of a Probe Committee was issued in exercise of appellate powers vested in this Court in proceedings arising out of Article 226 of the Constitution as also those vested in this Court under Article 142 thereof. We 51 also need to remember that the directions came in a public interest petition with a view to finding out whether there was any truth in the allegations that owners of IPL teams and franchisees were in a big way indulging in sporting frauds thereby discrediting the game and cheating the public of their confidence in its purity. That being the object, it is futile to set up the “disciplinary procedure” under the Rules against the exercise of such plenary powers as are vested in this Court under the constitutional provisions mentioned above.
42. Having said that we must say and say it without any hesitation that like the Disciplinary Procedure Commission even the Probe Committee set up by this Court was bound to observe the principles of natural justice in the matter of conducting the probe entrusted to it. That is because of the consequences that would flow from any finding which the Probe Committee would record against those accused of wrong doings. As seen earlier, Raj Kundra has been found to be a team official of Rajasthan Royals by the Probe Committee.
Even according to the concessions made before 52 us by the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Raj Kundra Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Ltd. he was a duly accredited team official. Such being the position a notice was required to go only to Mr. Raj Kundra for it was he alone who was alleged to have indulged in betting. Mr. Desai’s contention that since the Committee did not issue any notice to Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Ltd. the owner of Rajasthan Royals the finding recorded by the Probe Committee holding Mr. Raj Kundra guilty of betting was vitiated does not appear to be sound to us. Whether or not Mr. Raj Kundra’s misconduct can and should result in loss of franchise granted to Rajasthan Royals is a matter which may concern Jaipur IPL cricket Private Ltd. but that is a different matter altogether.
The question immediately falling for our consideration is not whether the franchise held by Mr. Desai’s client should be cancelled. The question is whether Mr. Raj Kundra was heard by the Justice Mudgal Committee, before holding him guilty of betting. Our answer to that question is in the affirmative. Admittedly, Mr. Raj Kundra was heard by the Committee before concluding that he had indulged in betting. Absence of any notice to anyone else was of little 53 consequence so long as the person concerned was duly notified and afforded a fair opportunity. To that extent, therefore, the grievance sought to be projected by the Jaipur IPL Private Ltd. regarding absence of any notice need be noticed only to be rejected.
43. There was no serious challenge to the findings recorded by the Probe Committee on the merits of the findings against Mr. Raj Kundra. Mr. Desai appearing for Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Ltd., no doubt, contended that the finding was based on certain assumptions, but we do not see any merit in those contentions. Even otherwise strict rules of evidence do not have any application to an