BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIAversusCRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS.

                         [2017] I S.C.R. 525



       BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA                             A
                                 v.
          CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4235of2014)
                        JANUARY 02, 2017                                 B

      [T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
               DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
      BCCI matter:
       Contempt of court - Recommendations of the Lodha                  c
Committee - Affirmed by this Court in the final judg111ent and order
dated 18.06.2016 - However, failure of BCCI to comply with the
jz1dgment and order of this Court, de5pite sufficient time given -
Request by President of BCCI (Mr. Anurag Thakur) to the President
of ICC for issuance of letter in his capacity as ICC Chairman that
                                                                         D
the appointment of CAG nominee would a111ount ro Governmental
interference and would invoke suspension fi·o111 ICC - Held:
Conduct of the President of BCCJ in seeking a letter from the
President in ICC after the final judgment qf this Court ·was an
attempt on the part of the head of BCCJ to evade complying with
the order of this Court - There was absolutely no occasion for the       E
President, BCCJ to solicit any such clarification from the Chairperson
of ICC in the teeth of the judgment delivered by this Court - Mt.
 Thakur by his actions and conduct rendered himself unfit for
continuance as President of BCCJ - He obstructed and impeded
order of this Court dated 18.07.2016 - He is to be proceeded with
                                                                         F.
for contempt of court - Show cause notice issued to him for giving
false statement - All the office bearers of BCCI and of its affiliated
State Associations who failed to meet the norms recommended by
the Committee and accepted by this Court, to demit and cease to
hold office - President of BCCJ and Secretary, BCCJ to cease and
desist from being associated with the working of BCCJ - Senior           G
most Vice-President of BCCJ to perform the duties of the President,
BCCI and the Joint Secretary to perform the duties of Secretary -
Committee of administrators to supervise the administration of BCCI
through its Chief Executive Officer - Pr'?ceedings to be listed for
pronouncement' of directions in regard to the names of the
                                                                         H
                                 525
526            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2017] I S.C.R.


A     administrators - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 195 rlw
      s.340 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4235
      OF2014.
            i'rom the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2013 of the High Court
B     of Judicature at Bombay in PIL No. 55 of2013.
                                      WITH
            Civil Appeal Nos. 4236 OF 20 I 4 and I 155 of20 I 5
            Maninder Singh, ASG, Gopal Subramanium, (AC), Kapil Sibal,
c     Arbind Dattar, Pramod Swarup, Sr. Advs., Santosh Krishnan, Ankur
      Kashyap, Raghav Chadha, Pavan Bhushan, Ms. Radha Rangaswamy,
      Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Abhinav M,ukerji, Ameet Singh, Ms. Pareena
      Swarup, Praveen Swarup, Ms. Sushma Verma, Sahil, V.K. Biju, Ms. Ria
      Sachthey, Amit A. Pai, Senthil Jagadeesan, Nirnimesh Dube, Vikas
D     Mehta, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Ravindra Bana,
      R. Balasubramanian, Prabhas Bajaj, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Aarti
      Sharma, Ananya Mishra, Raj Bahadur, M.K. Maroria, Amo! Chitale,
      Ms. Pragya Baghel, Ms. Samten Doma, Nirnimesh Dube, Gagan Gupta,
      Ms. Rashmi Singh, Ms. Manju Sharma, Venkita Subramoniam T. R.,
      Gaurav Sharma, A.S. Bhasme, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik,
E     Shree Pal Singh, E.C. Agrawala, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Anish R.
      Shah, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Chirag M. Shroff, Shreekant N. Terdal,
      Praveen Swarup, Ms. Liz Mathew, Anshuman Ashok, Ms. Kamakshi S.
      Mehlwal, Advs. for the appearing parties.
            The following Order of the Court was delivered
F
                                   ORDER
             I. This proceeding is a sequel to the order and directions issued
      on 21 October 2016. In the previous orderofthis Court, the status.report
      submitted by the three member Committee (consisting of Justice RM
      Lodha, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice RV Raveendran) was taken up
G
      for consideration.
              2. The Committee was tasked with overseeing the implementation
      of the judgment and orderofthis Court dated 18 July 2016. The judgment
      of this Court has attained finality. Review and Curative petitions have
      also been dismissed. By its judgment, this Court has accepted the
H
 BOARD OF CONTROL, FOR CRICKET IN !NOIA v. CRICKET                            527
              ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR

 recommendations made by the Committee in a report dated 18 December          A
 20 I 5 providing for reforms in the structure, organization and working of
 BCCI. Such an exercise is necessary in order to make the functioning
 ofBCCI transparent, objective and accountable to the trust with which
 it is impressed, as a body which presides over the affairs of a sport
 which has millions of followers. This Court h!ld by its judgment expressed
                                                                              B
 the hope that the process of implementing its directions would be
 completed within a period of four months or, at best, six months. The
 status report submitted by the Committee recorded that the directions of
 this Court were ignored, actions were taken by BCCI to present a fail
 accompli to the Committee and the directives issued by the Committee
 were breached. The Committee observed that BCCI has repeatedly               c
 taken steps to undermine its authority and this Court with several
 statements and actions which "are grossly out of order and would even
·constitute contempt".
         3. On 7 October 20I6, while taking note of the status report
  submitted by the Committee, this Court recorded the following prima         D
. facie findings:
       " ... The sequence of events .. since 1S'h July, 2016 and referred
       to in the status report prima facie give an impression that BCCI
       has far from lending its fullest cooperation to the Committee
       adopted an obstructionist and at times a defiant attitude which the E
       Committee has taken note of and described as an impediment ·
       undermining not only the Committee but even the dignity of this
       Court with several statements and actions which according to the
       Committee are grossly out of order and may even constitute
       contempt".
                                                                               F
        4. On 7 October 2016, this Court took note of the fact that despite
 the directions which the Committee issued on 21 August 2016 that the
 AGM ofBCCI may transact only routine business for 2015-2016 and
 that any business or matter for 2016-2017 may be dealt with only after
 the adoption of the Memorandum of Association and rules in pursuance
 of the recommendations of the Committee, substantial amounts running          G
 into crores of rupees were disbursed in favour of State Associations.
 BCCI had informed the court that one of the reasons for its failure to
 adopt the proposed MoA was the reluctance of its State Associations to
 subscribe to it. In this background, the court was constrained to issue
 directions inter alia to the effect that no further amounts shall be         H
528            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [20 I 7] I S.C.R.


A     disbursed to the State Associations except to those associations which
      undertake the reforms suggested by the Committee and accepted by the
      court.
             5. Another issue which was of concern was the conduct of the
      President of BCCI (Mr Anurag Thakur) who, the Committee recorded
B     as :caving asked the CEO of ICC to state that the Committee appointed
      by this Court amounted to 'govenimental interference'. It may be noted
      here that in an interview to the electronic media, the CEO of!CC stated
      that the President ofBCCI sought a letter from ICC that the appointment
      ofa nominee ofCAG (as directed by this Court on I 8 July2016 in terms
      of the recommendations of the Committee) would amount to
c     'governmental interference' inviting the suspension of BCCI from the
      membership of!CC. By its order dated 7 October2016, the President of
      BCCI was directed to file a personal affidavit clarifying the position.
            6. There were two versions before this Court in regard to what
      had transpired between the President of BCCI and Mr Shashank
D     Manohar, President of ICC at a meetingthat was held at Dubai on 6 and
      7 August 2016 during an ICC Governance Review Committee meeting.
      Mr. Ratnakar Shivaram Shetty, General Manager of Admin and Game
      Development, BCCI had in his response stated as follows:
            "It appears that an interview was given by Mr. David
 E          Richardson the ICC CEO falsely stating that the BCCI
            President had requested the ICC to issue a letter stating
            that the intervention by this Hon'ble Court amounted to
            Governmental interference. It is submitted that no such
            letter or oral request was ever made to the said gentleman
 F          either by the BCCI President or any office bearer of the
            BCCI. It is apparent that Mr. Richardson has confused himself
            in relation to the issue. This issue is required to be considered in
            the light of the fact that Mr. Shashank Manohar Senior Advocate
            had clearly opined as the BCCI President that appointment of the
            CAG in the BCCI shall result in suspension of the BCCI as it
 G          would constitute governmental interference. In fact the same
            had been submitted on affidavit before this Hon'ble Court.
            However, as Chairman of the ICC, Mr. Manohar had taken a
            contrary stand and stated that it would not amount to governmental
            interference. It was in this context that a discussion took
 H          place between Mr. Shashank Manohar and M.r. Anurag
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                            529
             ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR

      Thakur during a meeting in Dubai wherein a clarification              A
      as sought by Mr. Anurag Thakur during an informal
      discussion on what the exact status would be if the CAG
      was inducted by the BCCI as part of its management and
      whether it would amount to governmen.tal interference as
      had been advised and affirmed by Mr. Manohar during his
                                                                             B
      stint as BCCI President." (emphasis supplied)
Paragraph 7(d) of the response contains a statement that:
      "It is being incorrectly alleged that the President BCCI
      made a request to the ICC to issue a letter stating that this
      Committee amounts to Governmental interference. This                   C
      suggestion is denied". (emphasis supplied)
      On the other hand, the President of BCCl in his response (filed
pursuant to the directions of this Court) stated as follows:
      "In this context it is respectfully submitted that there was an ICC
      governance review committee meeting scheduled to be held in            D
      Dubai on 6"& 7" August 2016. There were certain issues relating
      to financial model for which my inputs were required and as such
      I was invited by ICC for the said meeting. During the meeting
      with regard to the review of the constitutional provisions of ICC,
      I pointed out to the Chairman of the ICC, Mr. Shashank Manohar         E
      that when he was the President of BCCI he had taken a view
      that the recommendations of the Justice Lodha committee
      appointing the nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council would
      amount to governmental interference and might invoke an action
      of suspension from ICC. I therefore requested him that he
      being the ICC Chairman can a letter be issued clarifying               F
      the position which he had taken as BCCI President. Mr.
      Manohar explained to me at the meeting that when the stand was
      taken by him, the matter was pending before this Hon'ble Court
      and had not been decided. However, on 18.07.2016 this Hon'ble
      Court delivered its judgment in the matter. In the said judgment,      G
      this Hon'ble Court has rejected the submission that the appointment
      of the nominee of CAG on Apex council would amount to
      Governmental interference and had also held that the ICC would
      appreciate the appointment as it would bring transparency in the
      finances of the Board." (emphasis supplied)
                                                                             H
530            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [20 I 7] I S.C.R.


A             7. In the response filed .. by Mr Shetty on behalf of BCCI there
      was a specific denial that its President had requested ICC to issue a
      letter stating that the Committee amounted to governmental interference.
      On the other hand, in the affidavit which the President ofBCCl filed in
      pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 7 October 2016 he
      accepted having made a request to the Chairman of ICC for issuing a
B
      letter "clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI President"
      (that the recommendation of the Committee for appointment of a CAG
      nominee would amount to governmental interference and may lead to a
      suspension of BCCI from ICC membership). !'vlr Shetty had not disclosed
      that there was any such request for a letter made by the President of
c     BCCI whereas according to the latter he had made such a request. Mr
      Shetty in fact denied that any requ.est for a letter was made to the ICC
      President by Mr Anurag Thakur.
             8. This Court by its order dated 21 October 2016 observed as
      follows:
D           "! 0. Be that as it may, it is a matter of serious concern that the
            President ofBCCl, even after the declaration of the final judgment
            and order of this Court dated 18 July 2016, requested the
            Chairperson of ICC for a letter "clarifying" (as he states) the
            position which he had taken as BCCI President to the effect that
E           the induction of a CAG nominee would amount to governmental
            interference and may result in BCCI being suspended from ICC.
            There was no occasion for the President of BCCI to do so once
            the recommendation of the Committee for the induction of a CAG
            nominee was accepted in the final judgment of this Court. In the
            judgment of this Court dated 18 May 2016, this Court observed as
F           follows:
            "77. There is, in our view, no basis for the argument that any
            measure taken by the BCCI on its own or under the direction of a
            competent court specially when aimed at streamlining its working
            and ensuring financial discipline, transparency and accountability
G           expected of an organization discharging public functions such as
            BCCI may be seen as governmental interference calling for
            suspension/derecognition of the BCCI. Far from finding fault with
            presence of a nominee of the Accountant General of the State
            and C&AG, the ICC would in our opinion appreciate any such
H           step for the same would prevent misgivings about the working of
 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                              531
              ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR

      the BCCI especially in relation to management of its funds and            A
      bring transparency and objectivity necessary to inspire public
      confidence in the fairness and the effective management of the
      affairs of the BCCI and the State Associations. The nominees
      recommended by the Committee would act as conscience keepers
      of the State Association and BCCI in financial matters and matters
                                                                                B
      related or incidental thereto which will in no way adversely impact
      the performance or working of the BCCI for the promotion and
      development of the game of cricket. The criticism leveled against
      the recommendations of the Committee is, therefore, unfounded
      and accordingly rejected''.
       11 This finding whic!ris contained in the final judgment and order       c
       of this Court binds BCCI. Primafacie, an effort has been made
       by the President of BCCI to create a record in order to question
       the legitimacy of the recommendation of the Committee for the
       appointment of a CAG nominee after the recommendation was
       accepted by this Court on 18 July 2016. We presently defer further       D
       consideration of the action to be taken with reference to his
       conduct. Mr. Shetty in his response to the status report claims
       that the CEO of ICC had "falsely" stated in his interview that the
       President of BCCI had requested ICC to issue a letter stating
       that the intervention of this Court amounted to governmental
       interference. The version of Mr. Shetty is at variance to what is        E
       alleged to have been stated by the CEO of ICC. It may also
       become necessary for this Cout1 to assess the veracity of the
       version of Mr. Shetty and that of Mr. Richardson. Mr. Shashank
       Manohar, the then President of BCCI is presently the Chairman
       of ICC. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to him by the            F
       Secretary to the Committee in order to enable him to consider
       filing a response setting out his version, to set the record straight
       and assist this Court. Mr. Manohar is at liberty to obtain a report
       from Mr. Richardson before filing his response."
In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 21 October 2016,         G
a response received by Mr Shashank Manohar, President of ICC has
been placed before this Court by the Amicus Curiae.
       9. After reviewing whether due and adequate steps were taken
 by BCCI \o implement the finalj udgment of this Court, this Court in its
·order dated 21 October 2016 recorded the following findings :
                                                                                H
532            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] I S.C.R.



A           ·• 15. For the reasons which have weighed with us in the earlier
            order of this Cou1t dated 7 October 2016 and for those which we
            have adduced above, we are inclined to take a serious view of the
            conduct of BCCJ in the present case. Despite the prima facie
            findings which were arrived at in the previous order, the further
            hearing was deferred. There. has been no change in the
B
            position of BCCI. The intransigence continues. If BCCI
            had any difficulties about adhering to the timelines laid down by
            the Committee, the appropriate course would have been to move
            the Committee. Even the grievance which was urged during this
            proceeding by BCCJ, that some of the directions of the Committee
c           have travelled beyond the parameters set by this Court can and
            ought to be urged before the Committee in the first instance."
            (emphasis supplied) ·
             I 0. A statement was made on behalf of the BCCI by learned
      Senior Counsel that BCCI would establish its bonafides before the
D     Committee by establishing the compliance made of those of its
      recommendations which are stated to have been fulfilled. Accordingly,
      in order to furnish BCCJ with an opportunity to demonstrate its compliance
      with the directions of this Court, we desisted from issuing a direction at
      that stage for the appointment of administrators (as sought by the
      Committee) in the hope that BCCI would comply with the judgment and
E     order of this Court in the meantime. While doing so, this Co mi observed
      that:
            "19 .... We have presently come to the conclusion that, prima
            facie, there is substance in the status report submitted by
            the Committee. Implementation of the final judgment of
F           this Court dated 18 July 2016 has primafacie been impeded
            by the intransigence of BCCI and its office bearers.
            However, having due regard to the submission made on
            behalf of BCCI that it would make every gennine effort to
            persuade the state associations to secure compliance with
G           the judgment of this Court, and having regard to the larger
            interests of the game of cricket, we are desisting from
            issuing a direction at this stage in terms of the request made
            by the Committee for appointment of administrators so as to enable
            BCCJ to demonstrate its good faith and the steps taken for
            compliance both before the Committee in the first instance and
H           before this Court by the next date of hearing." (emphasis supplied)
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRJCKET                                533
             ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR

       11. In pursuance of the previous directions issued by this Court,        A
on 2 I October 2016, the Committee filed another status report on 7
November 20 I 6 on which 01·ders were passed by this Court on 8
November 2016. The Committee has filed another status report on 14
November 2016 seeking the following directions:
      (i)   That all office bearers of BCCJ a10d State Associations who          B
            stand disqualified by virtue of the norms contained in its report
            dated 4 October 2016 and accepted by this Court must cease
            to hold office forthwith;
      (ii) All administrative and management matters be carried out
           by the CEO of BCCI without advertence to the office                   c
           bearers; and
      (iii) Appointment of anamed observer to supervise the
            administration of BCCI by the CEO.
The Committee has suggested that its own role may be confined to
overall policy and direction and not the actual administration ofBCCI.           D
      12.The President of BCCI has filed an affidavit in these
proceedings on 3 December 2016. The affidavit states that neither the
President nor the Secretary of BCCI command voting rights in the
meetings of the Working Committee. The affidavit states in the following
terms that the State Associations have declined to accept the                    E
recommendations made by the Committee and accepted by th is Court :
      "Accordingly the Hon Secretary convened the said meeting
      referred to above of the General Body of the BCCI for the
      30.9.2016 ....
                                                                                 F
      The meeting resumed the next day i.e. on 1.10.2016 ....
      I further state that I as Hon. President do not have a vote when I
      sit in the general body meeting neither does the Hon. Secretary ....
      I further state that I as a Hon. President am in no position
      to force members to adopt t.!Je full memorandum as                         G
      recommended, even though arno.:ti V'ilh an order of this Hon 'ble
      Court, as the members are of the op1111on that as per the provisions
      of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registr?'ico Act, 1975 under which
      the BCCI is registered, they can amend their memorandum only
      when three fourths of the members present and entitled to vote,
      accept the changes to the memorandum.                                      H
536             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] I S.C.R.



A           (g) Has been charged by a Court of Law for having committed
                any criminal offence."
              18. The Committee has in its status repo1t dated 14 November
      2016 drawn the attention of the court to the fact that several office
      bearers both of BCCl and the State Associations continue to hold posts
B     although they stand disqualified in terms of the above norms which have
      been accepted by this Court. Persons who have a vested interest in
      continuing in their positions inspite of the norms noted above have ensured
      that the writ of the court is obstructed and impeded. We need to emphasise
      that the turf of the cricket field is not a personal turf or fiefdom. We
      must hence order and direct that no person shall hereafter continue to
c     be or be entitled for appointment as office bearer of BCCl or a State
      Association in breach of the above norms. All existing office bearers of
      BCCJ and of the State Associations who do not fulfill the above norms
      shall with effect from the date of this Order stand disqualified.
             19. That leads the court to the issue of the conduct ofShri Anurag
D     Thakur, President of BCCI. By the final judgment and order of this
      Court dated 18 July 2016, the plea that the appointment of a nominee of
      CAG would amount to governmental interference with the affairs of
      BCC! was specifically negatived. By its judgment, this Court had observed
      as follows:
E           "77. There is, in our view, no basis for the argument that any
            measure taken by the BCCI on its own or under the direction ofa
            competent court specially when aimed at streamlining its working
            and ensuring financial discipline, transparency and accountability
            expected of an organization discharging public functions such as
 F           BCCI may be seen as governmental interference calling for
            suspension/derecognition of the BCCI. Far from finding fault with
            presence of a nominee of the Accountant General of the State
            ·and C&AG, the ICC would in our opinion appreciate any such
            step for the same would prevent misgivings about the working of
            the BCCI especially in relation to management of its funds and
G            bring transparency and objectivity necessary to inspire public
            confidence in the fairness and the effective management of the
            affairs of the BCCI and the State Associations. The nominees
             recommended by the Committee would act as conscience keepers
            of the State Association and BCCI in financial matters and matters
H            related or incidental thereto which will in no way adversely impact
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                              537
             ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR

      the performance or working of the BCCI for the promotion and            A
      development of the game of cricket. The criticism leveled against
      the recommendations of the Committee is, therefore, unfounded
      and accordingly rejected."
        20. Once this position had been laid down by the court, there was
no occasion for the President of BCCI at the ICC Governance Review            B
Committee Meeting held at Dubai on 6 and 7 August 2016 to solicit a
letter from the Chairperson of!CC. Such a solicitation was but an effort
to thwart the implementation of the orders of the court. An attempt was
made to build up a record to indicate that implementing the orders of the
Supreme Court oflndia would run the risk of endangering the status of
BCCI as a member of!CC. In pursuance of the Order of this Court, Mr.
                                                                               c
Shashank Manohar (President- ICC) has in an email dated 2 November
2016 addressed to the Committee made the following disclosure:
      "I would like to state that there was a meting of the Working
      Group of the ICC held at Dubai on the 6'h August, 2016 to consider
      the ICCs Governance and Financial Structure. At the meeting,             D
      apart from myself and Mr Anurag Thakur, Mr Giles Clarke, Mr
      David Peever and Mr Imran Khwaja, who are all Directors of
      ICC were present. The ICC CEO, Mr David Richardson and
      ICC COO Mr. Lain Higgins were also present..
      During the meeting Mr Thakur pointed out to me that when                 E
      I was the President of BCCI a submission was advanced
      before the Supreme Court at my behest that the
      appointment of a nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council
      might amount to Governmental interference and would
      invoke an ai.'tion of suspension from the ICC. He therefore              F
      requested me to issue a letter to that effect in my capacity
      as ICC Chairman ..
       I declined to issue such a letter and explained to him that the said
       submission was advanced before the Hon Supreme Court when
       the court was hearing the matter. However, on 18-7-2016 the             G
       Hon SC delivered its judgment in the matter and rejected the
       submission that the appointment ofa nominee of the CAG would
       amount to governmental interference. The Hon SC further held
       that the appointment of the CAG 1iominee on the Apex Council
       either made by the BCCl on its own or under the orders or a
       competent court aimed at bringing financial discipline and              H
538            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [20 I 7) I S.C.R.



A           transparency cannot be seen as governmental interference calling
            for suspension of the BCCI by the ICC.
            The Hon SC further held that the ICC would appreciate the
            appointment of such a nomin~e as the same would bring
            transparency in the finances of the Board ..
B           I therefore explained to Mr Thakur that the issue having been
            decided by the Hon Supreme Court oflndia, which is the highest
            court of the country and whose judgment binds everybody, I cannot
            give him any such letter." (emphasis supplied)
             21. The response by Mr Shashank Manohar indicates that the
c     President of BCC! requested him on 6 August 2016 to issue a letter in
      his capacitv as ICC Chairman in tenns of the position that he had adopted
      as the President of BCCI ("that the appointment of a CAG nominee
      would amount to governmental interference and would invoke an action
      of suspension from ICC"). The conduct of the President of BCCI in
D     seeking a letter from the President ofICC in August 2016, after the final
      judgment and Order of this Court, is nothing but an attempt on the part
      of the head of BCC! to evade complying, with the Order of this Court.
      That he sought a letter is clear even from the affidavit of Mr Thakur
      dated I 5 October 20 I 6 (though he states that he had requested the ICC
      Chairman to clarify the position which he had taken as BCCI President).
E     Even going by that version, we are constrained to note that there was
      absolutely no occasion for the President of BCCI to solicit any such
      clarification from the Chairperson ofICC in the teeth of the judgment
      that was delivered by this Court. Moreover, we find adequate reasons to
      doubt the veracity of the explanation which has been tendered by Mr
F     Thakur about the sequence of events. It must be noted that in the response
      which was filed by Mr Ratnakar Shivaram Shetty to the status report of
      the Committee there was a reference to a discussion which took place
      between Mr Manohar and Mr Thakur in Dubai and to a clarification
      sought by the latter on what "the exact status would be" if a CAG
      nominee was inducted by BCCI. Mr. Shetty specifically denied that Mr
G     Thakur had requested the ICC Chairperson to issue a letter. Mr Shetty's
      response was based on records. This reference to some "clarification"
      was evidently not on the basis of the minutes of the purported meeting
      of BCCI Working Committee held on 22 August 2016 which were placed
      on record.by learned Senior Counsel for BCCI during the course of the
H
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                           539
             ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR

hearing prior to the Order of this Court dated 21 October 2016. If those    A
minutes were before Mr Shetty, he would have made a disclosure in
their terms. The purported minutes read as follows :
      "Mr. Anurag Thakur was in the Chair and called the meeting to
      order and welcomed the members. He briefed the members about
      his meeting with the ICC Chairman at Dubai during the ICC             B
      governance review committee meeting on 6th & 7th August 2016.
      Certain financial mode inputs were required during the said
      meeting which he gave. During the meeting with regard to the
      review of the constitutional provisions ofJCC it was informed by
      Mr. Thakur that he asked Chairman ICC Mr. Shashank Manohar
      that when he was the President of BCCI he had taken a view
                                                                            c
      that the recommendations of Justice Lodha committee appointing
      the nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council would amount to
      governmental interference and might invoke an action of
      suspension from ICC. It was therefore requested from him
      that he being the ICC Chairman could a letter be issued               D
      clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI
      President. Mr. Manohar thereafter explained that when the stand
      was taken by him the matter was pending before the Supreme
      Court and was not decided. However on 18th of July 2016 the
      Hon. Supreme Court oflndia delivered its judgment and the Court
      has rejected the submission that the appointment of the nominee       E
      ofCAG on Apex council will amount to Governmental interference
      and had also held that the ICC would appreciate the appointment
      as it would bring transparency in the finances of the Board. The
       discussion stopped in view of his explanation on this issue".
       (emphasis supplied)                                                  F
       22. Primafacie it would appear that these minutes had not seen
the light of the day when the response by Mr Shelly to the status report
of the Committee was filed, and have been fabricated subsequently to
lend credence to the version of Mr Thakur. The statement that Mr
Manohar was requested to clarify the position which he had taken as         G
BCCI President is falsified by Mr Manohar's disclosure that he was
asked to give a letter in his capacity as ICC Chairman.The version of
Mr Thakur that he had requested Mr Manohar that "he being ICC
Chairman can a letter be issued clarifying the position" which he had
taken as BCCI President is belied by the disclosure which has been
                                                                            H
540            SUPREME COl. RT REPORTS                         [20 I 7] I S.C.R.



A     made by Mr Shashank Manohar. Mr Manohar' s response dated 2
      November 2016 clearly indicates that during the course of the meeting
      at Dubai on 6 August 2016, Mr Thakur requested him to issue a letter in
      his capacity as ICC Chairperson that the appointment of a nominee of
      CAG in BCC! might amount to governmental interference, leading to
      action of suspension from ICC. Primafacie, it emerges from the record
B
      that Mr Thakur did seek such a letter from the ICC Chairperson as
      stated by Mr Manohar. The disclosure which Mr Thakur has made in
      his affidavit dated 15 October 2016 is primafacie false to his knowledge.
      Primafacie, we also find thatthe minut~s of the meeting of the Working
      Committee ofBCCI which were produced before this Court have been
c     made up to lend support to the version of Mr Thakur.
            23. We accordingly have arrived at the conclusion that Mr Thakur
      has by his actions and conduct rendered himselfunfit for continuance as
      President ofBCCI, for the following reasons:
      Firstly, he has obstructed and impeded the implementation of the directions
D     contained in the judgment and order of this Court dated 18 July 2016.
      His own version is that he has been "rendered totally incapable and
      without any authority" to compel the members to comply with the orders
      of this Court. This is indicative of his having washed his hands off a duty
      and obligation to ensure compliance.
E     Secondly, we are primajacie of the view that Mr Thakur is liable to be
      proceeded with for contempt of court for having obstructed and impeded
      the orders of this Court.
      Thirdly, prima facie we are of the view that Mr Thakur has made
      statements on affidavit before this Court which are false to his knowledge.
F     A notice to show cause should be issued to Mr Thakur why he should
      not be proceeded witl1 under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for having made false statements
      before this Court.
            24. In determining the modalities to be followed, we have drawn
G     sustenance from an order dated 28 March 2014 passed by a Bench of
      two learned Judges of this Court consisting ofHon'ble Mr Justice AK
      Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr Justice F M 1 Kalifulla. In view of the
      circumstances which had then arisen resulting in the President ofBCCI
      being unable to perform his duties, this Court appointed a distinguished
      cricket sportsperson, as an interim measure, to exercise the powers of
H
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                              541
             ASSOCIATION OF BlHAR

the President in relation to IPL 2014. With regard to all other matters,       A
the senior most Vice-President of BCCI was under the orders of the
Court permitted to discharge the functions of the President, BCCI.
      25. For the above reasons, we order and direct as follows:
      (i) All the office bearers, of BCCI and of its affiliated State
          Associations who fail to meet the norms recommended by the
          Committee and accepted by this Court, shall forthwith demit·
          and cease to hold office namely:
          "A person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer if
          he or she:
                                                                               c
          (a) Is not a citizen of India;
          (b) Has attained the age of 70 years;
          (c) Is declared to be insolvent, orofunsound mind;
          (d) Is a Mi11ister or government servant;
                                                                               D
          (e) Holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association
          or federation apart from "cricket;
          (f) Has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative
          period of 9 years;
          (g) Has been charged by a Court of Law for having committed          E
          any cr1minal offence."
       (ii) Shri Anurag Thakur, President ofBCCl and Shri Ajay Shirke,
            Secretary, BCCI shall forthwith cease and desist from being
            associated with the working of BCCI;
                                                                               F
       (iii)A notice to s]]ow cause shall issue to Mr Anurag Thakur to
           explain why he should not be proceeded against under the
           provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of
           Criminal Procedure, 1973;
       (iv)A notice to show cause shall issue to Mr Anurag Thakur to
                                                                               G
           exp.lain why he should not be proceeded. with under the
           Centempt of Courts Act, 1971;
                '                   .

       (v) A Committ~e of administrators shall supervise the administration
           ofBCCI through its Chief Executive Officer;
     . :(vi)Thi~ Court shali' bY._ a separate order nominate the "persl;ms     H
542      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2017] I S.C.R.



A        who shall form pa11 of the Committee of administrators. In
         order to enable the Court to have the benefit of objective
         assistance in making the nominations, we request Mr Fali S
         Nariman, learned Senior Counsel and Mr Gopal Subramaniam,
         the learned Amicu~ Curiae to assist the Court by suggesting
         names·ofpersons with integrity and experience in managing a
B        similar enterprise. We request the learned Counsel appearing
         on behalf of the parties to also place their suggestions before
         the Court so as to facilitate a considered decision;
      (vii)In addition to the function' assigned in (v) above, the Committee
          of administrators shall also ensure that the directions contained
c         in the judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016 (which accepted
          the report of the Committee with modifications) are fulfilled
          and to adopt all necessary and consequential steps for that
          purpose;
      (viii)In view of the directions contained in (ii) above, the senior
r.i       most Vice-President of BCCI shall perform the duties of the
          President, BCCI and the Joint Secretary shall perform the duties
          of.Secretary. Those of the office bearers of BCCI ·who are
          not disqualified in terms of clause (i) above (other than the
          President and Secretary) may continue subject to their filing
E         an unconditional undertaking before this Court within four weeks
          of the date of this order to abide by and implement the directions
          contained in ihe judgment dated 18 July 2016. Upon the
          Committee of administrators as nominated by this Court
          assuming charge, the existing office bearers shall function
          subject to the supervision and control of the Committee of
 F        administrators. The Committee of administrators would have
          the power to issue all appropriate directions to facilitate due
          superviSion and control; and
      (ix)The remuneration payable to the members of the Committee
         of Administrators shall be fixed in consultation with the
G        Committee consisting of Mr Justice RM Lodha, Mr Justice
         Ashok Bhan and Mr Justice RV Raveendran.The role of the
         Justice RM Lodha Committee shall hereafter be confined to
          overall policy and direction on such matters as may be referred
          by this Court.
H
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                                    543
             ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR

        (x) We would request the leaned Senior Counsel and the learned              A
          · · Amicus Curiae to endeavour to submit their suggestions to this
              Court within two weeks. The proceedings sh al I be listed before
              this Court on 19 January 2017 for pronouncement of directions
              in regard to the names of the administrators.
        26. There shall accordingly be an order_ in these terms.                    B


Nidhi Jain                                                     Directions issued.