BCCI's Tryst with Article 12: The IPL Saga |
|
|
|
|
| <<Previous Page |
EXCERPTS |
|
| |
In 2013, two PIL’s were filed before the High Court of Bombay by the Cricket Association of Bihar. A writ of mandamus was filed by the petitioner requesting the Court to direct the BCCI to recall its order constituting a probe panel comprising two retired Judges of the Madras High Court to enquire into the allegations of betting and spot fixing in the IPL made against India Cements Ltd.: Jaipur IPL Cricket Pvt. Ltd., the owner of Rajasthan Royals; and Gurunath Meiyappan, son in-law of N. Srinivasan, the then President of BCCI and owner of India Cements Ltd.
Probe Panel was constituted by the BCCI to inquire into the allegations of spot fixing and match fixing in the IPL. It was constituted by the BCCI in compliance with the Operational Rules of BCCI and consisted of J. Balasubramaniyam and Justice T. J. Choutha, retired judges of the Madras High Court, with Sanjay Jagdale, Secretary of BCCI, as the third member. |
| |
 |
| or |
 |
| or |
PayPal (9 USD)
|
|
|
| |
|
Based on the Bombay High Court decision, three appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. Two appeals were filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar and one by the BCCI. All the appeals were heard and disposed of together...
|
|
In the Zee Telefilms case, counsel for BCCI contended that even though the Board regulated the fundamental rights of the players and the right to profession under Article 19 (1) (g) and had all-pervasive power to regulate the cricketing career of a player, that would not be suffice to declare BCCI as a ‘State’ under Article 12...
|
|
The decision was welcomed by game lovers and in legal circles. According to Gopal Sankaranarayanan, a Supreme Court advocate, the verdict would put a full stop to the full control that the Board insisted it had in running the game...
|
|
Exhibit 1: Judgments Relating to Legal Status of BCCI
|
| |
| |
|
