APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
BENCH: V. Rao, J
FACTS:
- Based on the match-fixing allegations investigated into by the Central Bureau of Investigation in October 2000, a commissioner was appointed by the BCCI to look into and enquire about the conduct of cricketers who were allegedly involved in match fixing.
- The Commissioner’s report dated 5 Dec 2000, concluded the involvement of Azharuddin in match- fixing and prohibited him for life, from playing cricket matches conducted by the International Cricket Council (ICC) or BCCI; and holding any position in the ICC or BCCI, or any of their affiliate organizations.
- A civil petition was filed by the respondent in the City Civil court, Hyderabad to overturn BCCI’s order as the constitution and operation of the Committee were against the rules of the BCCI and the principles of natural justice.
- City court upheld the order of BCCI in August 2003 which lead to the respondent preferring an appeal in the High Court.
ISSUE:
- Whether the appointment of the Commissioner to inquire into the match-fixing was as per the BCCI rules
- Whether the authorities followed the principle of natural justice
SUBMISSIONS BY PETITIONER:
- That the trial court committed manifest irregularity by passing the impugned order.
- That if the original record based on which the report of CBI was drawn is not produced by the CBI, prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENTS:
- That appointment of the Commissioner to undertake the inquiry into the allegations of misconduct against Azharuddin was in excess of the authority granted by the Rules
- That the maintainability of the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was invalid.
JUDGEMENT:
Rule 38 of BCCI Rules was examined and it was held that it only stipulated the creation of a committee and not a Commissioner to inquire concerning the procedure for conducting proceedings in case of misconduct, hence the appointment of commissioner was more than grant of authority as per the rule. The court further distinguished between preliminary and ordinary inquiry and that the PE report did not allow the respondent to provide any evidence in his defense or cross-witness which are the very essence of principles of natural justice. The court ruled the inquiry by the Commission failed to obligate the principles of natural justice, and thus it’s finding against the Respondent was unenforceable.
