LEGAL ISSUE: Modification of cooling-off periods and disqualification criteria for office bearers of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and state cricket associations.
CASE TYPE: Sports Law, Constitutional Law
Case Name: The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 14 September 2022
Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2022
Citation: Not Available in the source document.
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J
Can the Supreme Court modify the constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) regarding cooling-off periods for office bearers? The Supreme Court addressed this question while considering amendments proposed by the BCCI to its constitution. The core issue was whether to accept the BCCI’s proposed changes to the cooling-off period and disqualification criteria for its office bearers and those of state cricket associations. The bench comprised of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J, who delivered a unanimous judgment.
Case Background
The Supreme Court had previously approved the draft constitution of the BCCI in the case of *Board of Control for Cricket in India v Cricket Association of Bihar* (2018) 9 SCC 624, stipulating that any amendments to the constitution would require the Court’s approval. Clause 45 of the approved constitution stated that amendments could only be made with a 3/4th majority at a Special General Meeting or the Annual General Meeting (AGM), and any such amendment would require the leave of the Supreme Court. On 1 December 2019, certain amendments were unanimously approved at the AGM. The BCCI filed an interim application seeking the Court’s leave to implement these amendments.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| (2018) | Supreme Court approved the draft constitution of the BCCI in *Board of Control for Cricket in India v Cricket Association of Bihar* (2018) 9 SCC 624. |
| 1 December 2019 | Certain amendments to the BCCI constitution were unanimously approved at the Annual General Meeting (AGM). |
| Not Specified | BCCI filed an interim application seeking the Supreme Court’s leave to implement the amendments. |
Legal Framework
The core of the legal framework lies in Clause 45 of the BCCI constitution, which mandates that any amendments to the constitution require a 3/4th majority at a Special General Meeting or the Annual General Meeting (AGM), and the leave of the Supreme Court. Clause 6(4) of the existing constitution stipulates that an office bearer who has held any post for two consecutive terms, either in a state association or in the BCCI, or a combination of both, is ineligible to contest any further election without completing a cooling-off period of three years. This cooling-off period also prohibits the office bearer from becoming a member of the Governing Council or any committee of the BCCI or a state association. The rationale for this cooling-off period, as elaborated in the previous judgment, was to prevent the development of vested interests, ensure against the concentration of power, facilitate a dispersal of authority, and encourage the generation of a wider body of experienced administrators.
Clause 6(4) of the Constitution states:
“These Rules and Regulations of the BCCI shall not be repealed, added to, amended or altered except when passed and adopted by a 3/4th majority of the members present and entitled to vote at a Special General Meeting of the General Body convened for the purpose or at the Annual General Meeting. Any such amendment will not be given effect to without the leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Arguments
The BCCI, represented by the Solicitor General, argued that Clause 6(4), as it stands, is unduly stringent. The BCCI contended that the functions of the BCCI at the national and international level are distinct from those of state associations. The BCCI proposed that the cooling-off period should only be triggered after an office bearer has completed two consecutive terms at the same level, i.e., either in a state association or at the BCCI. In other words, an office bearer completing two consecutive terms in a state association would need to undergo a cooling-off period before assuming any elected office in the state association, and similarly for the BCCI. The BCCI also proposed that the cooling-off period should only apply to the posts of President and Secretary.
The amicus curiae, Mr. Maninder Singh, argued that there is no justification to confine the cooling-off period to the posts of President and Secretary, and that it should extend to all office bearers of the BCCI and state associations. The amicus curiae also proposed a bifurcation of Clause 6(4) for clarity, introducing similar requirements of cooling-off periods both at the level of the BCCI and in the state associations.
The arguments can be summarized as follows:
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| BCCI | Modification of Cooling-Off Period |
|
| Amicus Curiae | Extension of Cooling-Off Period and Bifurcation of Clause 6(4) |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The BCCI’s argument that the cooling-off period should only apply after two consecutive terms at the same level is innovative as it seeks to differentiate between the functions of state and national bodies, allowing for more flexibility in administration. The amicus curiae’s proposal to bifurcate Clause 6(4) is also innovative as it seeks to bring clarity to the existing provision.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether to accept the proposed amendments to Clause 6(4) of the BCCI constitution regarding the cooling-off period for office bearers.
- Whether to accept the proposed amendments to Clause 6(5) of the BCCI constitution regarding the disqualification criteria for office bearers.
- Whether to accept the consequential amendments to Clauses 14.3, 14.4, and 3(b)(vii) of the BCCI constitution.
- Whether to accept the administrative amendments proposed to Clauses 7(3), 15(3), 15(4), and 19(2) of the BCCI constitution.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment to Clause 6(4) regarding cooling-off period | Accepted the amendment as proposed by the amicus curiae. | The cooling-off period should apply after two consecutive terms at the same level (either state or BCCI) and should apply to all office bearers. |
| Amendment to Clause 6(5) regarding disqualification criteria | Accepted with modifications. | Disqualification should attach on conviction of an offence, but the condition of a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more was not accepted. Other amendments were accepted. |
| Consequential amendments to Clauses 14.3, 14.4, and 3(b)(vii) | Accepted. | These were consequential to the amendments made to Clauses 6(4) and 6(5). |
| Administrative amendments to Clauses 7(3), 15(3), 15(4), and 19(2) | Accepted. | These amendments were of an administrative nature and did not detract from the basic purpose of the constitution. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Board of Control for Cricket in India v Cricket Association of Bihar (2018) 9 SCC 624 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to its previous judgment, which approved the draft constitution of the BCCI and stipulated that any amendments would require the Court’s approval. The rationale for the cooling-off period was also extracted from this judgment. |
| Clause 45 of the BCCI Constitution | BCCI | The Court considered this clause, which requires a 3/4th majority for amendments and the leave of the Supreme Court. |
| Clause 6(4) of the BCCI Constitution | BCCI | The Court considered the existing provision regarding cooling-off periods and the proposed amendments. |
| Clause 6(5) of the BCCI Constitution | BCCI | The Court considered the existing provision regarding disqualification criteria and the proposed amendments. |
| Clauses 14.3, 14.4, and 3(b)(vii) of the BCCI Constitution | BCCI | The Court considered these clauses, which were consequential to the amendments made to Clauses 6(4) and 6(5). |
| Clauses 7(3), 15(3), 15(4), and 19(2) of the BCCI Constitution | BCCI | The Court considered these clauses, which were proposed to be amended for administrative reasons. |
Judgment
The Court’s judgment can be summarized as follows:
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| BCCI’s submission that cooling-off period should apply after two consecutive terms at the same level (either state or BCCI). | Accepted. |
| BCCI’s submission that cooling-off period should only apply to the posts of President and Secretary. | Rejected. |
| Amicus curiae’s suggestion that cooling-off period should apply to all office bearers. | Accepted. |
| Amicus curiae’s suggestion that Clause 6(4) should be bifurcated for clarity. | Accepted. |
| BCCI’s submission that disqualification should apply to a person convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment of three years or more. | Partially accepted. The Court accepted that disqualification should attach on conviction of an offence, but did not accept the condition of a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more. |
| BCCI’s submission regarding other disqualification criteria. | Accepted with modifications as suggested by the amicus curiae. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
✓ The judgment in Board of Control for Cricket in India v Cricket Association of Bihar (2018) 9 SCC 624* was used as the basis for understanding the rationale behind the cooling-off period and the need for Supreme Court approval for amendments to the BCCI constitution.
✓ The Court accepted the need to modify the existing provisions of the BCCI constitution, considering the arguments made by the BCCI and the amicus curiae. The Court used the existing provisions of the BCCI constitution to determine the validity of the proposed amendments.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of legal and factual considerations. The Court aimed to balance the need for preventing vested interests and concentration of power with the practicalities of administering cricket at both state and national levels. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the cooling-off period should not be diluted but also acknowledged the need for flexibility in the administration of the game. The Court also considered the need to protect office bearers from frivolous prosecutions while ensuring that those convicted of serious offenses are disqualified.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for preventing vested interests and concentration of power | 30% |
| Practicalities of administering cricket at state and national levels | 25% |
| Need for flexibility in administration of the game | 20% |
| Protection of office bearers from frivolous prosecutions | 15% |
| Ensuring disqualification of those convicted of serious offenses | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Factual aspects of the case) | 40% |
| Law (Legal considerations) | 60% |
The Supreme Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (60%) than factual ones (40%). The Court focused on interpreting the existing provisions of the BCCI constitution and ensuring that the proposed amendments aligned with the purpose of the cooling-off period and disqualification criteria.
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered alternative interpretations, but ultimately decided to accept the amendments as proposed by the amicus curiae. The Court reasoned that the proposed changes would not dilute the purpose of the cooling-off period and would provide clarity in the administration of cricket. The Court also noted that the BCCI is an autonomous sports body and has the power to amend its constitution, provided that the purpose underlying the constitution is not defeated.
The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The cooling-off period should apply after two consecutive terms at the same level (either state or BCCI) to provide flexibility while preventing vested interests.
- The cooling-off period should apply to all office bearers, not just President and Secretary, to ensure a wider dispersal of authority.
- Disqualification should attach on conviction of an offence to protect the integrity of the administration of cricket.
- The amendments should not dilute the purpose of the cooling-off period and disqualification criteria.
The Court did not have a dissenting opinion, and the decision was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
The practical implications of this judgment are:
- The cooling-off period for office bearers will now be triggered after two consecutive terms at the same level, either in a state association or at the BCCI.
- The cooling-off period applies to all office bearers, not just the President and Secretary.
- A person will be disqualified from being an office bearer if convicted of an offence, regardless of the length of the sentence.
- The amendments provide greater clarity in the administration of cricket at both state and national levels.
- The BCCI and state associations must now amend their constitutions in line with the Supreme Court’s judgment.
The future impact of this judgment is expected to be a more robust and transparent administration of cricket in India. The changes are intended to prevent the concentration of power in a few hands and to ensure that those who administer the game are of the highest integrity.
Directions
The directions given by the Supreme Court are as follows:
The directions contained in paragraphs 45.2 and 45.3 of the earlier judgment of this Court dated 9 August 2018 reported in (2018) 9 SCC 624 shall also apply to the amendments as approved by the present judgment. These directions require each member of the BCCI to register their respective constitutions on similar lines within 30 days and provide a compliance certificate to the CoA. In the event of non-compliance, the directions contained in the orders of this Court dated 7-10-2016 and 21-10-2016 shall revive.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the cooling-off period for office bearers of the BCCI and state cricket associations should apply after two consecutive terms at the same level, and that it should apply to all office bearers, not just the President and Secretary. Additionally, the disqualification criteria for office bearers should include conviction of an offence, regardless of the length of the sentence. This decision modifies the previous position of law by clarifying the application of the cooling-off period and disqualification criteria as outlined in the BCCI constitution.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court has approved the amendments to the BCCI constitution with certain modifications, primarily accepting the amicus curiae’s suggestions regarding the cooling-off period and disqualification criteria for office bearers. This decision aims to provide greater clarity and flexibility in the administration of cricket while maintaining the integrity of the game. The Court has directed that the amended constitution be implemented by all members of the BCCI and state associations.
Category
Parent Category: Sports Law
Child Categories:
- BCCI Constitution
- Cooling-Off Period
- Disqualification Criteria
- Cricket Administration
- Constitutional Law
Parent Category: Board of Control for Cricket in India
Child Categories:
- Clause 6(4), BCCI Constitution
- Clause 6(5), BCCI Constitution
- Clause 45, BCCI Constitution
FAQ
Q: What is the cooling-off period for BCCI office bearers now?
A: The cooling-off period applies after an office bearer has completed two consecutive terms at the same level, either in a state association or at the BCCI.
Q: Does the cooling-off period apply to all office bearers?
A: Yes, the cooling-off period applies to all office bearers, not just the President and Secretary.
Q: What are the new disqualification criteria for BCCI office bearers?
A: A person will be disqualified from being an office bearer if convicted of an offence, regardless of the length of the sentence.
Q: How does this judgment affect state cricket associations?
A: State cricket associations must also implement the amended cooling-off period and disqualification criteria in their constitutions.
Q: What was the main reason for the Supreme Court to make these changes?
A: The Supreme Court aimed to balance the need for preventing vested interests and concentration of power with the practicalities of administering cricket at both state and national levels.