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

                        [2022] 14 S.C.R. 519                              519


     THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA                            A
                                  v.
          CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS
                       (IA No. 49930 of 2020)
                                  In                                      B
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014)
                       SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                  HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
                                                                          C
       Sports: BCCI – Interim application filed by BCCI seeking the
leave of this Court to give effect to certain amendments in their
Constitution – Held: With regard to amendment in Clause 6(4) of
the existing Constitution which contains the stipulation 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 shall not       D
be eligible to contest any further election without completing a
cooling off period of three years – BCCI seeking the requirement of
a cooling off period to confine only to the posts of President and
Secretary – The amicus curiae proposed a bifurcation of the existing
provision by introducing similar requirements of cooling off periods
                                                                          E
both at the level of the BCCI and in the state associations – The
purpose for which the cooling off period was introduced, would
not be diluted by the proposed amendment, subject to the stipulations
suggested by the amicus curiae – The proposed stipulation that the
cooling off period comes into effect after two consecutive terms at
the same level namely, at the state associations or the BCCI does         F
not abrogate the purpose of a cooling off period – Hence, the
suggestions stipulated by amicus curia accepted – With regard to
amendment in Clause 6(5) which states the grounds of
disqualification from being an office bearer, a member of the
governing council or any Committee or a representative to the
                                                                          G
International Cricket Council or any similar organization – The
stipulation that the disqualification should attach on a conviction
of an offence was accepted – However, the further condition that a
disqualification would follow upon a sentence of imprisonment of
three years or more not accepted – Certain other amendments were
sought on the basis of above amendments, hence, accepted.                 H
                                 519
520            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A           Disposing of the interim application, the Court
             HELD: 1. The existing position is that: (i) A person who is
      elected as an office bearer in a state association for two
      consecutive terms would have to undergo a cooling off period;
      (ii) A person who is elected as an office bearer at the BCCI for
B     two consecutive period would have to undergo a cooling off period;
      and (iii) A person who is elected as an office bearer in a state
      association for one term followed by election as an office bearer
      at the BCCI for one term would similarly have to undergo a cooling
      off period. The consequence, therefore, is that a person who has
      held office as an elected office bearer for only one term at the
C     BCCI would have to undergo a cooling off period. The submission
      is that the application of a cooling off period after one term at a
      particular level (the BCCI or state association, as the case may
      be on after an immediately prior term at another level) is unduly
      stringent and needs to be modified having regard to the purpose
D     for which the cooling off period was introduced. [Paras 14 and
      15][528-D-H]
             2. BCCI is an autonomous sports body. The judgment of
      this court did not abrogate its power, as a registered society, to
      amend its Constitution. The stipulation that an amendment be
E     carried by a three fourths majority and should not be implemented
      without the prior leave of this court is in order to ensure that the
      purpose underlying the adoption of the Constitution of BCCI is
      not defeated. The purpose for which the cooling off period was
      introduced, would not be diluted by the proposed amendment,
      subject to the stipulations suggested by the amicus curiae. The
F     proposed stipulation that the cooling off period comes into effect
      after two consecutive terms at the same level namely, at the state
      associations or the BCCI does not abrogate the purpose of a
      cooling off period. Therefore, the amendment as set out in Column
      3 above is accepted [Para 16][529-A-C]
G          3. The next amendment is proposed to Clause 6(5) of the
      BCCI’s Constitution. As in the case of Clause 6(4), the
      amendment which was proposed to Clause 6(5) was deliberated
      upon during the course of the hearing and certain suggestions
      have been made in the course of the discussion by the amicus
H
     THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                 521
                   ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR


curiae. BCCI has submitted that the disqualification from holding         A
any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation
apart from cricket needs to be modified since several cricketers
of eminence are associated with other sporting activities such as
football and golf after retirement from cricket and there is no
reason to disqualify them on that ground. Secondly, it has been
                                                                          B
submitted that the disqualification which is attached to a person
who is charged of having committed a criminal offence is proposed
to be modified so as to apply to a person who is convicted of an
offence and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years.
This amendment, it has been submitted, is intended to protect
office bearers who may be subjected to frivolous prosecutions.            C
Finally, it has been submitted that the expression “or holds a
public office” is over-broad and that the disqualification should
only apply to a person who holds office as a Minister or
government servant. [Paras 17 and 18][529-C-D; 530-F-H; 531-
A]
                                                                          D
      4. The stipulation that the disqualification should attach on
a conviction of an offence may be accepted. However, the further
condition that a disqualification would follow upon a sentence of
imprisonment of three years or more cannot be accepted. During
the hearing, BCCI agreed that the disqualification would govern
a conviction and sentence of imprisonment. The reasons set out            E
for the other amendments are acceptable. [Para 19][531-B-C]
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: IA No. 49930 of 2020 in
Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2013 of the High Court      F
of Judicature at Bombay in Public Interest Litigation in PIL No.55 of
2013.
      Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Maninder Singh,
Sr. Adv. (A.C.), R. Balasubramanian, Kapil Sibal, Ravindra Kumar,
Rafique Dada, Anupam Lal Das, Jayant K. Mehta, Siddharth Dave, D.         G
N. Goburdhun, Sr. Advs., Sridhar Potaraju, Gaurav Sharma, Saurabh
Chadha, Tejveer Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Manmeet Kaur
Sareen, Ms. Mitushi Goyal, Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Vikas
Shukla, Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Rajat Srivastava, Pranav Saigal, Ms. Ashita
Chawla, Ajay Sabarwal, Ms. Bina Madhavan, S. Uday Kumar Sagar,
                                                                          H
522            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A     Abhinav Mukherjee, Akanksha Mehra, Kanu Agarwal, Lakshay Saini,
      M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co, Senthil Jagadeesan, Abhishek Singh, Nirnimesh
      Dube, Kanu Agarwal, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Arvind
      Kumar Sharma, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Ambika Atrey, Akash Giri,
      Ms. Manju Sharma, Anish R. Shah, P. Narasimhan, V. K. Biju, Ms.
      Swathi H. Prasad, Ms. Ria Sachthey, Chetanya Singh, Amlendu Kumar
B
      Akhilesh Kumar Jha, Abhay Pratap Singh, Dr. Ranjeet Bharti, Ms. Rubina
      Jawed, Ms. Celeste Agarwal, Ms. Akansha Agarwal, Mohan Babu
      Agarwal, Rameshwar Pd. Goyal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Bina
      Gupta, E. C. Agrawala, R. Chandrachud, Sarvesh Singh, Chirag M.
      Shroff, Azim H. Laskar, Bikas Kar Gupta, Chandra Bhushan Prasad,
C     Amol Chitale, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Nirnimesh Dube, Ritesh Kumar
      Chowdhary, Praveen Swarup, Santosh Kumar - I, Ms. Liz Mathew, Ms.
      Sonali Jain, Ms. Vasudha Jain, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Balaji Srinivasan,
      Ms. Rashmi Singh, Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Gagan Gupta, Santosh
      Mishra, K. K. Mohan, Rahul Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh, Amit Singh, Ms.
      Parichita Ray, Shree Pal Singh, Sanveer Mehlwal, Ms. Geetanjali
D
      Mehlwal, Mohit Yadav, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Arjun Garg, Ms.
      Sonia Mathur, Snehasish Mukherjee, Rajat Mittal, Pai Amit, Ms. Pankhuri
      Bhardwaj, Abhiyudaya Vats, Raj Bahadur Yadav, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,
      Nar Hari Singh, Hemant P., Rahul Verma, Udayaditya Banerjee, Ms.
      Nidhi Agarwal, Pushpinder Singh Sondhi, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Anand
E     Prakash, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ms. Charu Ambwani, Neeraj Shekhar,
      Ms. Purnima Krishna, Mohammad Wasim, Aditya Ranjan, Samir Ali
      Khan, Abhay S. Khandeparkar, Vikas Warerkar, Saurabh Jain, Kaushik
      Poddar, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Shaddab Anwar,
      Prakhar Srivastav, Astik Gupta, Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Vipul Abhishek,
      Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Ms.
F
      Thashmitha Muthanna, Prashanth Dixit, M/s. Devasa & Co., K. Krishna
      Kumar, Jayant Mohan, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Sandeep Devashish Das,
      Deeptakirti Verma, Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Divyank Dutt
      Dwivedi, Ravi Singh Chhikara, Kaustubh Shukla, Tarun Gupta, Arjun
      Singh Bhati, Kabir Hathi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ankolekar Gurudatta, Sahil
G     Tagotra, Abhishek Pandey, Abhivyakti Banerjee, Anshuman Ashok,
      Ashok Panigrahi, Saurabh Trivedi Ms. Rachna Gandhi Shashank Shekhar,
      Ronak Baid, Khushant Wadhwa, Maneesh Pathak, Chander Shekhar
      Ashri, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Shalini Chandra,
      Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Gaurav
      Sharma, Rauf Rahim, Aditya Verma, M. P. Devanath, P. V. Yogeswaran,
H
     THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                      523
                   ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR


Rabin Majumder, Satya Sabharwal, Shamik Sanjanwala, Sukant Vikram,             A
Rajesh, Sadapurna Mukherjee, Aakarsh Kamra, Balendu S., Gauri
Goburdhun, Advs. for the appearing parties.
       Respondent-in-person
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                               B
       DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
        1. By the judgment of this Court in Board of Control for Cricket
in India v Cricket Association of Bihar1, the draft Constitution of the
Board of Control for Cricket in India2 was approved. The Court stipulated
that any amendment to the Constitution shall not be given effect to without    C
the leave of the Court. Clause 45 of the Constitution, as approved, contains
the following provision:
       “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      D
       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.”
     2. On 1 December 2019, certain amendments were approved                   E
unanimously at the Annual General Meeting3.
      3. An interim application has been filed for seeking the leave of
the Court to give effect to the amendments. Areference to the relevant
clauses which are proposed to be amended would be necessary.
       4. Clause 6(4) of the existing Constitution contains the stipulation    F
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 shall
not be eligible to contest any further election without completing a cooling
off period of three years. During the cooling off period, there is a
prohibition on an office bearer becoming a member of the Governing             G
Council or of any committee of the BCCI or of a state association. The
rationale for adopting a cooling off period was elaborated in Section C

1
  (2018) 9 SCC 624
2
  “BCCI”
3
  “AGM”                                                                        H
524                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A     of the judgment of this Court. The rationale was explained in paragraph
      35 of the judgment in the following terms:
            “…       A cooling-off period has several features which are of
                     utmost importance:
            (i)      it is a safeguard against the development of vested personal
B                    interests;
            (ii)     it ensures against the concentration of power in a few hands;
            (iii)    it facilitates a dispersal of authority; and
            (iv)     it encourages the generation of a wider body of experienced
C                    administrators.
            Cooling-off must be accepted as a means to prevent a few
            individuals from regarding the administration of cricket as a
            personal turf. The game will be better off without cricketing
            oligopolies.”
D
             5. While explaining the proposed provision for a cooling off period
      after the completion of two consecutive terms, this Court provided the
      following illustrations:
            “However, in our view, it would be appropriate to direct that a
            cooling-off period of three years would apply after an individual
E           holds two successive terms in office either in BCCI, or in any
            State Association or a combination of the two. For instance, if an
            office-bearer has held office for two consecutive terms in any
            post in a State Association, such an individual must face a cooling-
            off period of three years. Likewise, if an individual has
F           held any post as an office-bearer of BCCI for a total period of six
            years in succession, the individual must have a cooling-off period
            of three years before seeking election again either to BCCI or to
            a State Association. The cooling-off period would apply also in a
            situation where an individual holds a post for one term in a State
            Association followed by a post in BCCI successively or vice versa.
G           This would ensure that after a period of six years involving two
            consecutive terms, a cooling-off period would be attracted.
            Allowing an individual to act as an office-bearer for six years in
            continuation, is a sufficiently long period for experience and
            knowledge gained to be deployed in the interest of the game
H           without at the same time resulting in a monopoly of power.”
    THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                         525
  ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


        6. An amendment of Clause 6.4 has been proposed on the ground            A
that the BCCI undertakes its activities both at the national and international
level. On the other hand, the activities of the state associations are
conducted at the level of each state. Though there may be a degree of
overlap between the functions associated at the state level, on the one
hand, and the national level by the BCCI, on the other hand, it has been
                                                                                 B
submitted that the functions are distinct in a large number of areas and
activities.
        7. Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the
applicant, submitted that Clause 6(4), as approved by this Court, indicates
that a person who has completed one term at the state level followed by
                                                                                 C
one term at the BCCI would have to complete a cooling off period of
three years. In other words, though an office bearer at the BCCI has
completed only one term at the BCCI, the cooling off period would come
into effect. It has been submitted that the unanimous view at the AGM
is that this provision should be modified so as to stipulate that the cooling
off period would come into effect after an office bearer has completed           D
two consecutive terms at the same level, that is in a state association or
at the BCCI. In other words, an office bearer who completes two
consecutive terms in a state association would necessarily have to
complete a cooling off period of three years before assuming any elected
office at the state association. Likewise, an office bearer who completes
                                                                                 E
two consecutive terms at the BCCI would have to mandatorily undergo
a cooling off period of three years before seeking any election at the
level of the BCCI.
      8. The amended provision, as proposed at the AGM, seeks to
confine the requirement of a cooling off period only to the posts of
                                                                                 F
President and Secretary. The amendment as proposed envisages in other
words that the cooling off period will not apply to other posts.
        9. Mr Maninder Singh, senior counsel, who was requested to assist
this Court as an amicus curiae, submitted that there would be no
justification to confine the cooling off period only to the post of President
                                                                                 G
and Secretary and must extend to all other office bearers of the BCCI
and the state associations.
      10. In order to bring clarity to the position, a tabulated chart has
been placed before this Court indicating:
       (i)    The existing provision;                                            H
526          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A     (ii)     The amended provision proposed by BCCI; and
      (iii)    The proposed clause after incorporating the suggestions
               made by the amicus curiae.
      11. The tabulated position (in track mode) reads as follows:
B




C




D




E




F




G




H
  THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET    527
ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


                                                          A




                                                          B




                                                          C




                                                          D




                                                          E




                                                          F




                                                          G




                                                          H
528                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A            12. As the above tabulation indicates, the amicus curiae has
      proposed a bifurcation, for the sake of clarity, of the existing provision
      by introducing similar requirements of cooling off periods both at the
      level of the BCCI and in the state associations. Clause 6(4), as originally
      incorporated, is hence sought to be bifurcated separately for the BCCI
      and the state associations. The Solicitor General has stated that the
B
      amendment as proposed by the amicus curiae is acceptable to the BCCI.
            13. Having considered the application and the reasons which have
      been set out, we are of the considered view that the amendment as
      proposed in the third column above, should be accepted in terms of the
      suggestions of the amicus curiae. The reasons for accepting the above
C     proposal are indicated below.
            14. The principal rationale for adopting a cooling off period has
      been explained in the judgment of this Court, extracted above. This Court
      had adopted the rationale that the cooling off period would kick in after
      an individual holds two successive terms in office either at the BCCI or
D     in any state association or a combination of the two. The effective
      consequence of the existing position is that:
            (i)      A person who is elected as an office bearer in a state
                     association for two consecutive terms would have to undergo
                     a cooling off period;
E
            (ii)     A person who is elected as an office bearer at the BCCI
                     for two consecutive period would have to undergo a cooling
                     off period; and
            (iii)    A person who is elected as an office bearer in a state
F                    association for one term followed by election as an office
                     bearer at the BCCI for one term would similarly have to
                     undergo a cooling off period.
             15. The consequence, therefore, is that a person who has held
      office as an elected office bearer for only one term at the BCCI would
      have to undergo a cooling off period. The submission is that the
G
      application of a cooling off period after one term at a particular level
      (the BCCI or state association, as the case may be on after an immediately
      prior term at another level) is unduly stringent and needs to be modified
      having regard to the purpose for which the cooling off period was
      introduced.
H
   THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                        529
 ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


        16. BCCI is an autonomous sports body. The judgment of this            A
court did not abrogate its power, as a registered society, to amend its
Constitution. The stipulation that an amendment be carried by a three
fourths majority and should not be implemented without the prior leave
of this court is in order to ensure that the purpose underlying the adoption
of the Constitution of BCCI is not defeated.The purpose for which the
                                                                               B
cooling off period was introduced, would not be diluted by the proposed
amendment, subject to the stipulations suggested by the amicus curiae.
The proposed stipulation that the cooling off period comes into effect
after two consecutive terms at the same level namely, at the state
associations or the BCCI does not abrogate the purpose of a cooling off
period. We, therefore, accept the amendment as set out in Column 3             C
above.
       17. The next amendment is proposed to Clause 6(5) of the BCCI’s
Constitution. As in the case of Clause 6(4), the amendment which was
proposed to Clause 6(5) was deliberated upon during the course of the
hearing and certain suggestions have been made in the course of the            D
discussion by the amicus curiae. The position is tabulated below (in
track mode):



                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H
530            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A




B




C




D




E




F            18. BCCI has submitted that the disqualification from holding any
      office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from
      cricket needs to be modified since several cricketers of eminence are
      associated with other sporting activities such as football and golf after
      retirement from cricket and there is no reason to disqualify them on that
G     ground. Secondly, it has been submitted that the disqualification which is
      attached to a person who is charged of having committed a criminal
      offence is proposed to be modified so as to apply to a person who is
      convicted of an offence and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
      three years. This amendment, it has been submitted, is intended to protect
      office bearers who may be subjected to frivolous prosecutions. Finally,
H
   THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                    531
 ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


it has been submitted that the expression “or holds a public office” is    A
over-broad and that the disqualification should only apply to a person
who holds office as a Minister or government servant.
       19. The stipulation that the disqualification should attach on a
conviction of an offence may be accepted. However, the further condition
that a disqualification would follow upon a sentence of imprisonment of    B
three years or more cannot be accepted. During the hearing, BCCI
agreed that the disqualification would govern a conviction and sentence
of imprisonment. The reasons set out for the other amendments are
acceptable. Subject to what has been observed above, the amendment
as tabulated in column 3 above does not detract from the basic purpose
and object underlying the judgment of this Court. The amendment, as        C
proposed in Column 3 above, is hence permitted to be effected.
      20. An amendment has been proposed to Clauses 14.3 and 14.4,
as well as to Clause 3(b)(vii) which are consequential to the amendments
which have been made to Clauses 6(4) and 6(5). The amendments to
Clauses 14.3 and 14.4 and Clause 3(b)(vii) are in the following terms:     D




                                                                           E




                                                                           F




                                                                           G




                                                                           H
532   SUPREME COURT REPORTS   [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A




B




C




D




E




F




G




H
  THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET    533
ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


                                                          A




                                                          B




                                                          C




                                                          D




                                                          E




                                                          F




                                                          G




                                                          H
534            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A           21. Certain amendments of an administrative nature are proposed
      in Clauses 7(3), 15(3) and (4) and 19(2), which are tabulated below:




B




C




D




E




F




G




H
  THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET    535
ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


                                                          A




                                                          B




                                                          C




                                                          D




                                                          E




                                                          F




                                                          G




                                                          H
536            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A




B




            22. The above amendments as tabulated in Column 3 above are
C     accepted.
             23 An amendment was sought in Clause 45 to delete the provision
      requiring the leave of the Court to amend BCCI’s Constitution. The
      proposed amendment is not pressed by BCCI.

D            24. Paragraphs 45.2 and 45.3 of the earlier judgment of this Court
      dated 9 August 2018 reported in (2018) 9 SCC 624 contains the following
      directions:
            “45.2. Upon the registration of the said Constitution of BCCI, each
                   of the members shall undertake registration of their
                   respective Constitutions on similar lines within a period of
E
                   30 days thereafter. A compliance certificate must be
                   furnished to the CoA, which shall file a status report before
                   this Court with reference to the compliance undertaken by
                   the State Associations; and
            45.3. In the event that any State Association does not undertake
F
                  compliance with the abovesaid directions, the directions
                  contained in the orders of this Court dated 7-10-2016
                  [BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, (2016) 10 SCC 23] and
                  21-10-2016 [BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, (2016) 10 SCC
                  231] shall revive.”
G           25. The above directions shall also apply to the amendments as
      approved by the present judgment.
            26. Mr Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, counsel, appeared in these
      proceedings on behalf of two individuals who were earlier, members of
      an entity called Association of Bihar Cricket. While opposing the
H
    THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                            537
  ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


amendments, counsel submitted that any modification of the clauses in               A
the terms as proposed would affect the underlying object of the provisions
in the original Constitution.
       27. Having carefully assessed the grievance, we do not find any
merit for the reasons which we have already indicated.
         28. The interim application is accordingly disposed of in the above        B
terms.

Devika Gujral                                    Interim application disposed of.
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)
                                                                                    C




                                                                                    D




                                                                                    E




                                                                                    F




                                                                                    G




                                                                                    H