Supreme Court Revisits Life Ban on Cricketer Sreesanth for Spot-Fixing: S. Sreesanth vs. BCCI (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 15 March 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 2424

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a sports governing body impose a lifetime ban on a player based on allegations of misconduct? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of S. Sreesanth vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. The court examined whether the disciplinary proceedings followed principles of natural justice and whether the punishment was proportionate to the alleged offense. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The appellant, S. Sreesanth, a cricketer registered with the Kerala Cricket Association and affiliated with the BCCI, was accused of spot-fixing during an IPL match on May 9, 2013, in Mohali. Delhi Police registered a case based on information about fixing in IPL matches. Sreesanth was arrested on May 16, 2013, on allegations of spot-fixing. The BCCI suspended him on May 17, 2013. A one-man commission was formed by the BCCI to investigate the matter. The commission submitted a preliminary report on June 5, 2013, based on video clippings and recordings of telephone conversations, indicating sufficient evidence against Sreesanth. Sreesanth gave a statement on June 24, 2013, denying spot-fixing and stating that his confession to the Delhi Police was due to torture and pressure. A supplementary report was submitted on July 8, 2013, relying on audio conversations between Sreesanth and his friend Jiju Janardhan, concluding that Sreesanth was part of spot-fixing. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and a show-cause notice was issued on September 4, 2013, accusing him of offences under Articles 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, and 2.4.2 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The disciplinary committee of the BCCI, after considering the reports and Sreesanth’s submissions, found him guilty of corruption, betting, and bringing disrepute to the game, imposing a life ban. Sreesanth was discharged from criminal charges by the Sessions Court on July 25, 2015, but the disciplinary committee refused to review its decision. Sreesanth’s request for a No Objection Certificate to play in the Scotland Premier League was also denied. He then filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, which was initially allowed by a single judge, quashing the life ban. However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, reinstating the life ban. Sreesanth then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code. Key articles include:

• Article 2.1.1: “Fixing or contriving in any way or otherwise influencing improperly, or being a party to any effort to fix or contrive in any way or otherwise influence improperly, the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any Match or Event.” This provision deals with corruption related to match-fixing.
• Article 2.1.2: “Seeking, accepting, offering or agreeing to accept any bribe or other Reward to fix or to contrive in any way or otherwise to influence improperly the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any Match or Event.” This provision addresses bribery and corruption.
• Article 2.1.3: “Failing or refusing, for Reward, to perform to one’s abilities in a Match.” This provision relates to underperforming for a reward.
• Article 2.2.3: “Ensuring the occurrence of a particular incident in a Match or Event, which occurrence is to the Participant’s knowledge the subject of a Bet and for which he/she expects to receive or has received any Reward.” This provision deals with betting-related offenses.
• Article 2.4.1: “Providing or receiving any gift, payment or other benefit (whether of a monetary value or otherwise) in circumstances that the Participant might reasonably have expected could bring him/her or the sport of cricket into disrepute.” This provision covers actions that could bring disrepute to the sport.
• Article 2.4.2: “Failing or refusing to disclose to the ACU BCCI (without undue delay) full details of any approaches or invitations received by the Participant to engage in conduct that would amount to a breach of this Anti-Corruption Code.” This provision relates to failure to disclose corrupt approaches.
• Article 3.1: “Unless otherwise described herein the Designated Anti- Corruption Official(or his/her designee) and the standard of proof in all cases brought under this Anti-corruption Code shall be whether the BCCI Disciplinary Committee is comfortably satisfied, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that is being made, that the alleged offence has been committed. This standard of proof in all cases shall be determined on a sliding scale from, at a minimum, a mere balance of probability (for the least serious offences) up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt (for the most serious offences).” This provision outlines the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings.
• Article 6: This article deals with sanctions and specifies the range of ineligibility for various offenses. It also outlines aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered while imposing sanctions.

These provisions are framed within the larger context of ensuring fair play and integrity in cricket, as emphasized by the International Charter of Physical Education and Sports.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Sreesanth):

• The disciplinary committee violated principles of natural justice by not providing transcripts of telephone conversations and not confronting him with them.
• He was not involved in spot-fixing and did not receive any money.
• His actions during the match were normal, and there was no evidence of underperformance.
• The preliminary report was prepared ex parte and should not have been relied upon.
• The burden of proof was wrongly placed on him, whereas it should have been on the Anti-Corruption Official.
• The disciplinary committee was not properly constituted as Shri Srinivasan had stepped down as President of the BCCI.
• The punishment of a life ban was excessive.
• The conversations with Jiju Janardhan do not indicate any spot-fixing.

Respondent’s Arguments (BCCI):

• Sreesanth was given a full opportunity to present his case.
• The evidence, including the audio recordings and his actions during the match, proved his complicity in spot-fixing.
• Sreesanth failed to explain the conversation about the Rs. 10 lakh.
• The disciplinary proceedings are akin to departmental inquiries, and the court should not interfere with the findings.
• The discharge order in the criminal case has no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings.
• The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is different from that in criminal trials.
• Shri Srinivasan was the President of the BCCI at the time of the disciplinary proceedings.

Sub-Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the disciplinary committee of the BCCI violated principles of natural justice by not providing transcripts of telephone conversations and not confronting the appellant with them?
2. Whether the disciplinary committee was right in its conclusion that there were sufficient materials on record to hold the appellant guilty of offences of corruption, betting, and bringing disrepute to the game?
3. Whether there were sufficient grounds for the High Court to hold that charges against the appellant were established based on materials on record?
4. Whether the disciplinary committee wrongly placed the burden of proof on the appellant?
5. Whether the discharge order dated July 25, 2015, had any effect on the disciplinary proceedings of BCCI?
6. Whether the constitution of the disciplinary committee was vitiated by including Shri Srinivasan as President?
7. Whether the disciplinary committee considered relevant parameters while imposing sanctions under Article 6?
8. Whether the disciplinary committee erred in imposing a life ban on charges under Article 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 of the Anti-Corruption Code?
9. The relief to which, if any, the appellant may be entitled.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the authorities to establish the principles of judicial review, the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings, and the factors to be considered while imposing sanctions. The Court used these authorities to highlight the distinction between criminal trials and disciplinary proceedings and to underscore the importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating factors while imposing punishment.

• State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557:* Used to define the supervisory nature of judicial review and to emphasize that courts should not re-appreciate evidence.
• Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610:* Used to reiterate the principles of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that the High Court should not act as a second court of first appeal.
• Central Industrial Security Force and others vs. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507:* Used to reinforce that courts should not re-appreciate evidence in departmental inquiries.
• Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs. Narender Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 265:* Used to highlight the different standards of proof in criminal trials and disciplinary proceedings.
• Jagmohan Singh vs. The State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20:* Used to emphasize the wide discretion judges have in determining punishment.
• Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684:* Used as a key authority on sentencing principles, emphasizing the need to consider both the crime and the criminal.
• Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 2 SCC 359:* Used to highlight the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment.
• Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 7 SCC 545:* Used to reiterate the importance of just punishment and to discourage disproportionately excessive sanctions.
• Mukesh and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi)and others, (2017) 6 SCC 1:* Used to review the principles of sentencing and to emphasize the need to consider mitigating circumstances.
• Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and others, (2015) 3 SCC 251:* Used to emphasize the importance of BCCI and its zero-tolerance policy towards corruption, while also noting that the quantum of punishment should vary depending on the gravity of the misconduct.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of legal principles and factual considerations. The Court emphasized the need to uphold the integrity of sports and the importance of disciplinary proceedings in maintaining fair play. However, it also stressed the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice and proportionality in punishment. The Court considered the evidence against Sreesanth, the procedural fairness of the disciplinary process, and the need to ensure that sanctions are appropriate and just. The Court was also mindful of the need to strike a balance between upholding the rules of the game and ensuring that individual rights are protected.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was more influenced by legal considerations (60%) than factual aspects (40%).

Key Takeaways

• Disciplinary proceedings in sports must adhere to principles of natural justice.
• The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings differs from that in criminal trials.
• Disciplinary committees must consider both aggravating and mitigating factors when imposing sanctions.
• Life bans should not be imposed without considering the specific circumstances of the case.
• Courts will not interfere with disciplinary findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

The judgment emphasizes the need for a balanced approach in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring that while the integrity of sports is maintained, individual rights are also protected. The decision has implications for how sports governing bodies impose sanctions and ensures that such decisions are made in a fair and transparent manner.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The order of the disciplinary committee imposing a life ban was set aside.
• The disciplinary committee of the BCCI was directed to reconsider the quantum of punishment/sanction to be imposed on the appellant.
• The appellant was to be given one opportunity to present his case on the question of quantum of punishment/sanction.
• The disciplinary committee was directed to take a decision on the quantum of punishment/sanction within three months.
• The appellant was directed to await the decision of the disciplinary committee.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while disciplinary proceedings in sports are necessary to maintain integrity, they must adhere to principles of natural justice and proportionality. The Supreme Court clarified that life bans should not be imposed automatically without considering relevant aggravating and mitigating factors as outlined in the Anti-Corruption Code. This judgment reinforces the need for a balanced approach in disciplinary matters, where both the integrity of the sport and the rights of the individual are given due consideration. It also clarifies that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is different from criminal trials, and the courts will only interfere when the conclusions are perverse or based on no evidence. This case also emphasizes that disciplinary committees must consider all relevant factors, as laid down in the code, while imposing sanctions, and that a life ban is not mandatory even in serious cases of corruption.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in S. Sreesanth vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the life ban imposed on the cricketer. While upholding the disciplinary committee’s finding of guilt, the Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach in disciplinary proceedings. The Court directed the BCCI to reconsider the quantum of punishment, ensuring that sanctions are proportionate and just. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the need to consider all relevant factors when imposing penalties in sports disciplinary matters.