KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday issued notices to the Central Government and cricket administrator Vinod Rai on the appeal filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) seeking to quash a Single Judge’s order lifting the life ban imposed on cricketer S Sreesanth in the IPL match-fixing scandal. Rai is the head of the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators of the BCCI.
Admitting the appeal filed by BCCI Chief Executive Officer Rahul Johri, the High Court also issued a notices to the national cricket governing body’s chairman and Kerala Cricket Association. The court posted the hearing for October 11.
The Single Judge had passed the judgment while allowing a petition filed by Sreesanth challenging the BCCI Disciplinary Committee’s decision. The cricketer had stated that despite a Delhi Sessions Court verdict discharging him from a crime registered in connection with the spot-fixing in 2015 under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, the BCCI refused to lift the ban.
In the appeal, the BCCI stated its working committee had discussed the Patiala House court order.
But, considering the breach of conditions set by the BCCI, it had decided not to lift the ban. This decision was taken, among other factors, on the basis of the Board’s zero-tolerance policy towards match-fixing and corruption in cricket, it said. The BCCI pointed out the Single Judge had erred in interfering with the decision of the disciplinary committee by way of a complete reappraisal of evidence to hold that Sreesanth was not guilty of match-fixing
This was contrary to the settled position of law that a High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot reappraise the evidence called during the inquiry or substitute its own finding with that of the disciplinary authority. A High Court’s role is limited to a determination of whether the inquiry is held by a competent authority, in accordance with the procedure prescribed or whether the principles of natural justice are adhered to. The BCCI further pointed out the Single Judge failed to appreciate that no effort was made on behalf of Sreesanth to disassociate himself from the allegation against Jiju Janardhanan and he never made an attempt to disprove the allegations against Janardhanan.
This was a clear indication of Sreesanth’s involvement in the incident of match-fixing, it said. The Disciplinary Committee order on September 13 was passed only after a thorough perusal, a detailed analysis and comprehensive consideration of all the evidence on record. The discharge order has not attained finality as the prosecution had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the acquittal, the BCCI said. Thus, the findings of the Sessions Court in the discharge are not final and cannot be relied upon. The BCCI further pointed out a ‘right to sport’ or ‘right to play cricket’ is not a fundamental right or the Constitutional right. Hence, the Single Judge’s interference in the case was unwarranted, it said.
Single Judge erred: BCCI
The BCCI pointed out the Single Judge had erred in interfering with the decision of the disciplinary committee
Pointing out another failure
The BCCI further pointed out the Single Judge failed to appreciate that no effort was made on behalf of Sreesanth to disassociate himself from the allegation against Jiju Janardhanan and he never made an attempt to disprove the allegations against Janardhanan