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

                         [2016] 9 S.C.R. 819



        BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA                             A
                                  v.
          CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4235 of20 I 4)
                        OCTOBER21, 2016                                   B
       [T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
                 DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
       Supreme Court - Directions - Breach of. by BCCI - Justice
Lodha Committee appointed by Supreme Court - Recommendations
by the Committee endorsed in the final judgment and order of              c
Supreme Court dated 18'" July, 2016 - In defiance thereof; President
of BCCI requested the CEO of ICC to state that the recommendation
of the Committee for appointing CAG nominee tantamounts to
governmental interference in working of BCCI - Held: There was
no occasion for the BCCI President to do so once (he                      D
recommendation of the Committee was accepted in the judgment
dated 18'" July, 2016 - Implementation of the said judgment was
prima facie impeded by intransigence of BCCI and its officers -
Though, BCCI is in default and breach of the directions of Supreme
Co!Jrt, additional opportunity given to it to establish its bona fides
and to secure compliance with the judgment dated 18'" July, 2016 -        E
In view of submission of BCCI that it would make every genuine
effort to secure compliance with the judgment of Supreme Court,
and in the larger interests of the game of cricket, no direction issued
at this stage. for appointment of administrators (as sought by the
Committee), so as to enable BCCI to demonstrate its good faith -
                                                                          F
BCCJ to report the steps taken for compliance both before the
Committee in the first instance and before Supreme Court by the
next date of hearing - However, additional directions issued in the
interest of maintaining transparency in the functioning of BCCI -
Sports - Cricket:
                                                                          G
       In order to make the functioning of Board of Control for Cricket
in India (BCCI) transparent, objective and accountable, Justice Lodha
Committee was appointed by Supreme Court. Recommendations were
made by the Committee inter alia for appointing a CAG nominee in
BCCI, which were endorsed in the final judgment and order ofSt_1preme
                                                                          H
                                 819
820            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 9 S.C.R.


A     Court dated J8•h July, 2016. A supervisory role was assigned to the
      Committee to see that the directions contained in the final judgment are
      implemented. The Committee filed status report observing that "BCCI
      repeatedly took steps to undermine the Committee and this
      Court" and that the President of BCCI had even gone to the extent of
      requesting ICC to issue a letter that "this Committee amounts to
 B
      governmental interference". In pursuance thereof, this Court asked
      the President ofBCCI to file a personal affidavit whether he had asked
      the CEO of the ICC to state that the appointment of Justice Lodha
      Committee tantamounts to government interference in the working of
      BCCI . The BCCI President accordingly filed an affidayit with reference
 c    to the said direction.
            The Court
             HELD: 1. In the present case, the issuance of certain
      additional directions has become inevitable, over and above those
      that are contained in the previous order dated 7 October 2016.
 D    Prima facie, there is substance in the status report submitted by
      the Justice Lodha Committee. Implementation of the final
      judgment of 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
 E     BCCI that it would make every genuine effort to persuade the
       State associations to secure compliance with the judgment of this
       Court, and having regard to the larger interests of the game of
       cricket, this Court is 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 BCCI to
 F     demonstrate its good faith and the steps taken for compliance
       both before the Committee in the first instance and before this
       Court by the next date of hearing. However, certain additional
       directions issued in the interest of maintaining transparency in
       the-functioning of BCCI, having regard to the sequence of events
 G     after 18 July 2016. [Para 19)[832-B-F]
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal J\jo. 4235
      of2014.
        . From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2013 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay in PIL No. 55of2013
 H
 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET · 821
           ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS.

                                     WITH                                     A
      C. A. No. 4236 of2014 and C. A, No. 1155 of2015.
       Maninder Singh,ASG., Gopal Subramanium (A.C.), Kapil Sibal,
Ms. Nalini Chidambram, Sr.Advs, Santhosh Krishnan, Ankur Kashyap,
Raghav Chadha, Pavan Bhushan, Abhik Chimni, Ms. Radha
Rangaswamy,Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Ranjeet Rohtagi, Vikas Mehta, Rajat           B
Sehgal, Karandeep Khanna, Ms. Anushree Menon, Gagan Gupta,
Abhinav Mukherjee, Ms. Neela Gokhale, Devanshu Sharma, Anvesh
Verma, Gaurav Kumar, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Senthil Jagadeesan,
Amol Chitale, Nirnimesh Dube, Pragya Baghel, R. Balasubramanian,
Ananya· Mishra, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Raj Bahadur, Shreekant N. Terdal,           c
Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Liz Mathew, M.F. Philip, Amit A. Pai;
Rahat Bansal, Venkita Subramoniam T. R., V. K. Biju, Ms. Rio Sachthey,
Ms. Anjali Chauhan, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, A. S. Bhasme,
E. C. Agraw:ala, Shree Pal Singh, Mrs Lalita Kaushik, Ms. Manju
Sharma, Praveen Swarup, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Chirag M. Shroff,
Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Anish R.            D
Shah, Anshunnan Ashok, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Vipin Nair,
Deeptakirti Verma, Tamali Wad, Vikas Singh Jangra, Rahul Pratap;Advs.,
for the appea:ring parties.
      The following order of the Court was delivered by
                                                                              E
                                  ORDER
       DR. I>. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. On 7 October 2016,
directions we:re issued by this Court pursuant to a status report dated 26
September 2016, submitted by the Committee consisting of Justice RM
Lodha, Justic1e Ashok Bhan and Justice RV Raveendran. The status              F
report filed by the Committee set out the sequence of events' that had
taken place afte:r the final judgment and orderoffhis Court dated 18 Ju.IY
2016, which ac:cepted the report submitted by the Committee on 18
December 2015 with certain modifications. A gist of the status report
has been set out 1in the earlier.Qrderdated 7 October 2016. After adverting
to the sequence •Of events, the Committee has concluded that.BCCI has         G
violated its directions: ·
      " ... Directiions of this Hon'ble Court have been ignored,
      actions have been taken to present a fair accompli to the
      Committee, the directives of the Committee have been
      breached, :and member associations have not been-duly                   H
822            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 9 S.C.R.



A           intimated about the directions of the Committee and the
            time lines fixed by it."
             The Committee has observed that "BCCI has repeatedly taken
      steps to undermine the Committee and this Court", with several
      statements and actions which "are grossly out of order and would even
B     constitute contempt". The Committee noted that despite several e-mails,
      as well as a direction to appear before it on 9 August 2016, the President
      ofBCCI did not furnish even a single response to the Committee. The
      Committee also observed that the President of BCCI had even gone to
      the extent of requesting ICC to issue a letter that "this Committee
      amounts to governmental interference" besides making several
c     objectionable statements in the press which undermined both the Court
      and the Committee.
          2. The Committee submitted the above status report in pursuance
   of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 18 July
   2016.This Court had by its judgment, while accepting the
D recommendations made in the earlier report of the Committee, assigned
   to the Committee a supervisory role for ensuring the transition from the
   old to the new system recommended by the Committee. While this
   Court in its judgment expressed a hope that the process of implementing
   the directions contained in the judgment would be completed within a
E period of four months or at best six months, the Committee was requested
   to draw appropriate timelines for the implementation of the
  ,,recommendations and to supervise the implementation process .. The
   Committee, while moving the status report observed that though the
   office bearers ofBCCI had furnished assurances to it on 9August2016,
    25 August 2016 and 20 September 2016, that they would cooperate with
F the Committee in fulfilling the directions of this Court (subject fo any
   modification or review) these assurances had not been fulfilled.
            3. ,n the previous Order of this Court dated 7 October 2016, the
      following primafacie, findings were recorded:-
G           " ... The sequence of events that have been taken place
            since 18'h July, 2016 and referred to in the status report
            prima facie give an impression that BCCI has tar from
            lending its fullest cooperation to the Committee adopted an
            obstructionist and at times a defiant attitude which the
            Committee has taken note of and described as an
H
 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRIGKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                      823
  ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D. Y. C.HANDRACHUD, J.]

      impediment undermining not onty the Committee but even             A
      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".
       This Court has noted that in spite of a directjqn issued by the
Committee on 21August2016 that theAGM ofBCCI which was to be B
held on 21 September 2016, may transact only routine business for 2015-
16 and that any business or matter relating to 2016-17 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 into crores of rupees have been disbursed in favour of
state associations. This Court expressed the view that BCCI could and    c
indeed ought to have avoided the disbursement of such a huge amount
while the Committee was still examining the ne~d for formulating a .
disbursement policy.                                 '
       4. During the course of the hearing which resulted in the earlier
order dated 7 October 2016, BCCI stated that one of the reasons for its D
failure to adopt the proposed MOA was the reluctance of the state·
associations to subscribe to it. In'this background, this Court observed
that ifthat be the position, there is no reason why the state associations
that are opposed to the reforms suggested by the Committee and accepted
by this Court should either expect or draw any benefit from the release · E
of grants by BCCI. The following directions have been.issued by this
Court on 7 October 2016:-
      "i) No further amount in terms of the Resolution passed in
      AGM on 09.11.2015 or any subsequent resolution by the
      BCCI or its Working <:,;ommittee shall be disbursed to any" ·      F
     .State Association excep_t where the State Association
      concerned passes a proper resolution to the effect that it is
      agreeable to undertake and to support the reforms as
      proposed and accepted by this Court in letter and spirit.
      Upon such a Resolution being passed, a copy of the same
      shall be filed before Justice Lodha Committee with an              G
      affidavit of the President of the State Asseciation concerned
      unequivocally undertaking to abide by the reforms as
      proposed by the Committee and accepted and modified by
      this Court. A similar affidavit with a copy of the ltesoluti~n
      shall be filed before this Court also: It is only after such       H
824            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 9 S.C.R.



A           affidavits are filed, that BCCI may. transfer the balance
            amount of Rs.16. 73. crores each payable to the State
            Association.
            As regards the I 3 State Associations to whom the payment
            has already been disbursed, we direct that the State
B           Association concerned shall not appropriate the said amount
            except after they have passed a resolution and filed an
            affidavit as J'nentioned above before Justice Lodha
            Committee and before this Court. In case the affidavits
            are not filed, the amount disbursed to the State Associations
            shall be invested by the Associations in a term deposit
c           subject to further directions of this Court.
            ii) Mr. Ratnakar Shivaram Shetty, General Manager, Admin
            and Game development shall, in the meanatime, place on
            record a copy of the authorization/resolution passed by the
            BCCI on the basis of which he has filed the affidavit
D           supporting the response of the BCCI to the status report.
            iii) Mr. Anurag Thakur, President of the BCCI shall file a
            personal affidavit whether he had asked the CEO of the
            ICC to state that the appointment of Justice Lodha
            Committee was tantamount to Government interference in
 E          the working of the BCCI.
            iv) Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel to produce
            the original record on the basis of which the affidavit by
            Mr. Ratnakar Shivaram Shetty on behalf ofBCCI has been
            filed".
 F
              5. In. pursuance of these directions, Mr Anurag Thakur, President
      of BCCI has filed an affidavit specifically with reference to direction
      (iii) above. Before we consider the affidavit that has been filed by the
      President of BCCI, it is necessary to advert to the response to the status
      report of the Committee filed by Mr Ratnakar Shivaram Shetty, General
G     Manager, Admn.& Game Development, BCCI. In the sequence of events
      set out in his response to the status report, Mr Shetty has dealt with the
      statement made in an interview given to the electronic media by Mr
      David Richardson, CEO ofICC. Mr Richardson stated that the President
      of BCCI sot•ght a letter from ICC that the appointment of a nominee of
      CAG (which has been directed by this Courton 18 July 2016 in terms of
H
 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                         825
  ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J .]

the Committee's recommendations) would amount to 'governmental             A
interference' thereby inviting the suspension of BCCI from the
membership of ICC. Mr Shetty's response was as follows:
       "It appears that an interview was given by Mr David
       Richardson the ICC CEO falsely stating that the BCCI
       President had requested the ICC to issue a letter stating           B
       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 ·
       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
                                                                           c
       considered in the light ofthe 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 would constitute governmental
       interference. In fact the same had been submitted on                D
       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
       place between Mr. Shashank Manohar and Mr. Anurag
     · Thakur during a meeting in Dubai wherein a clarification            E
       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 governmental interference as
       had been advised and affirmed by Mr. Manohar during his              F
       stint as BCCI President."
      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                 G
      suggestion is denied".
      6. In the affidavit which has been filed by the President OfBCCI
on 15 October2016, there is a deni~l that any such request was made.by
him to the CEO oflCC. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit contains the version
                                                                           H
826            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 9 S.C.R.



A of the President of what transpired at Dubai on 6/7 Avgust 2016 during
      the course of a meeting convened by ICC:
            "In this context it is respectfully submitted that there was
            an ICC governance review committee meeting scheduled
            to be held in Dubai on 61h& 7m August 2016. There were
B           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!CC, I pointed out to the
            Chairman of the ICC, Mr. Shashank Manohar that when
            he was the President ofBCCI he had taken a view that the
c           recommendations ofthe 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
D           the position which he had taken as BCCI P1 esident. 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, this Hon'ble Court has rejected
 E          the submission that the appointment of the nominee ofCAG
            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."
 F           7. Mr Kapil Si.bal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
      the, BCCI has tendered during the course of hearing draft minutes of a
      Working Committee meeting of BCCI held on 22 August 2016. The
      draft minutes purportedly contain a record of what is stated to have
      transpired between Mr Shashank Manohar, the Chairperson of!CC and
G     the President of BCCI at the meeting on 6 and 7 August 2016. The
      relevant part is extracted below:-


            "Mr. Anurag Thakur was in the Chair and called the meeting
            to order and welcomed the members. He briefed the
H           members about his meetin.gwith the ICC Chairman at Dubai
 BOARD 0.F CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                           827
  ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      during the ICC governance review committee meeting on                   A
      6th & 7m 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 of ICC it was informed by Mr. Thakur that he
      asked Chairman ICC Mr. Shashank Manohar that when he
                                                                              B
      was the President of BCCI he had taken a view 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 Chaii:man could a letter be issued            c
      clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI
      President. Mr. Manohar thereafter explained that when
      the stand was taken .iJ_y him the matter was pending before
      the Supreme Court and was not decided. However on 18'h
      of July 2016 the Hon. Supreme Court oflndia delivered its
                                                                              D
      judgment and the Court has rejected the submission that
      the appointment of the nominee 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".           E
       8. Prima facie, it appears from the response. that was filed by
BCCI to the status report, that a clarification was sought by Mr Anurag
Thakur from Mr Shashank Manohar on w~at the exact status would be
if a nominee of CAG was inducted by BCCI as part of its mam1gement
and whether it would amount to governmental interference. The statement       F
made by BCCI in its response to the status report contains a denial that
its President made a request to iCC to issue a letter stating that the
Committee amounted to governmental interference. However, in the
affidavit which has since been filed by the President ofBCCI in pursuance
of the Court's directions of7 October 2016, it has been accepted that he
                                                                              G
had made a request to the Chairman of ICC for issuing a letter "clarifying
the position which he had taken as BCCI President" (to the effect that
the recommendations of the Committee for appointing a nominee of
CAG would amount to governmental interference and might invoke an
action for suspension from ICC). Significantly, Mr Shetty did not in the
                                                                              H
828            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] .9 S.C.R.


A     response filed earlier by BCCI to the status report disclose that there
      was a request for a letter by its President to the Chairman, ICC.

             9. The draft minutes of the Working Committee purportedly dated
      22 August 2016, a copy of which has been placed on the record, are in
      tandem with the statement made by Mr Thakuron affidavit. Primafacie,
B     it appears that the draft minutes were not before Mr Shetty when he
      made a statement on behalf of BCCI in his response to the status report.
      If the draft minutes were before him, it would be natural to assume that
      the disclosure which has now emerged in pursuance of the order of this
      Court dated 7 October 2016 would have been contained in the response
 c    submitted by Mr Shetty to the status report. Mr Shetty has stated that
      the response filed by BCCI to the status report was based on infomiation
      derived from the records. If that be so, the purported draft minutes of
      the Working Committee could not have missed his attention or knowledge.

             10. Be that as it may, it is a matter of seri.0115 concern that the
 D    President ofBCCI, 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 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
 E    President ofBCCI 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 t8 July 2016, this
      Court observed as follows:-

            "77. There is, in our view, no basis for the argument that
 F
            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 expected of an organization
            discharging public functions such as BCCI may be seen as
 G          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

 H
 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                                829
  ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      the working of the BCCI especially in relation to                           A
      management of its. funds and 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
                                                                                  B
      keepers of the State Association and BCCI in financial
      matters and matters 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 levelled against the
      recommend\ltions of the Committee is, therefore, unfounded                  c
      and accordingly rejected".

       11. This finding which is contained in the final judgment and order
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               D
nominee after the recommendation was accepted by this Court on 18
July 2016. We presently defer further 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 ofBCCI had requested ICC to issue a letter
                                                                                  E
stating that the intervention of this Court amounted to governmental
interfer,ence. Th·e version of Mr Shetty is at variance to what is alleged
to have been stated by the CEO ofICC. It may also become necessary
for this Courtto assess the veracity of the version of Mr Shetty and that
of Mr Richardson. Mr Shashank Manohar, the then President ofBCCI
is presently the Chairman ofICC. A copy of this order shall be forwarded           F
to him by the 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.
      12. During the course of hearing, a grievance has been made on              G
behalf ofBCCI that though in the judgment of this Court dated 18 July
2016, it had been hoped that the process of implementing the reforms
suggested by the Committee "should be completed within a period of
four months or at best six months from today", the Committee has
hastened the process by indicating time lines for completion even within
                                                                                  H
830             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 9 S.C.R.


A     the said period. We find that the criticism of the Committee is not justified
      for more than one reason. Though this Court expressed the hope that
      the process of transition and implementation be completed within four
      months or at best within six months, this Court left it open to the
      Committee to draw "appropriate timelines for implementation of the
      recommendations" and to supervise the implementation thereof. The
B
      Committee which was entrusted with the task of supervisin_g the
      implementation process was pennitted to lay down suitable timelines.
      The process of implementation requires a continuous process of
      monitoring and supervision and it would be only reasonable to assume,
      as did the Committee, that the process could not be completed in one
c     instalment.Hence, the Committee laid down timelines for implementation.
              13. Hence, the broad framework of time prescribed by this Court
      does not preclude the Committee from specifying timelines. On the
      contrary, the Committee was specifically allowed to do so to implement
      the judgment. The status report contains a record of proceedings before
D     the Committee dated 9 Augnst 2016 which indicates that when the first
      set of timelines was handed over to BCCI's Secretary on 9 August
      2016, he stated before the Committee that a report of compliance would
      be furnished by 25 August 2016. Despite this, in the report dated 25
      August 2016, submitted by the Secretary, BCCI to the Committee there
      appears the following statement furnished by BCCI by way of a
E
      clarification at the Working Committee meeting held on 22 August 2016:
            "2 The Members queried as regards to the status of the
            review petition filed by the BCCI. It was clarified to the
            members that if the review petition as well as curative
            petition was dismissed, the recommendations of the Lodha
 F          Committee, save those as amended by the court would
            become_binding".
             14. The statement made on behalf of BCCl to the Working
      Committee that it was only if the Review Petition, as well as Curative
      Petition were to be dismissed that the recommendations of the Committee
G     would be binding is patently misconceived. The recommendations of
      the Committee were endorsed in a final judgment and order of this Court
      dated 18 July 2016, subject to certain modifications. The judgment of
      this Court has to be implemented as it stands. A party to a litigation
      cannot be heard to say that it would treat a judgment of this Court as not
H     having binding effect unless the Review or Curative Petitions that it has
 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET                            831
  ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

filed are dismissed.                                                          A
       15. For the reasons 'Yhich have weighed with us in the earlier
order of this Court dated 7 October 2016 and for those which we have
adduced above, we are inclined to take a serious view of the conduct of
BCCI in the present case. Despite the primafacie findings which were
arrived at in the previous order, the further hearing w~s deferred. There     B
has been no change in the position ofBCCI. The intransigence continues.
IfBCCI had any difficulties about adhering to the time lines 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 BCCI, that some of the directions of the Committee have travelled
beyond the parameters set by this Court can and ought to be urged
                                                                              c
before the Committee in the first i11stance.
         16. During the course of the hearing, Shri Kapil Sibal, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of BCCI has agreed to a course of
action whereby in the first instance, BCCI would establish its bona
fide!>: before theCommittee by demonstrating the complian.ce made by          D
it of those r~commendations which are stated to have been fulfilled. The
Committee as the body appointed by this Court to monitor and supervise
implementation of the judgment will verify whether there has been full
compliance with the directions which \lre stated by BCCI to have been
fulfilled.                                                                     E
        17. The President and Secretary ofBCCI shall (within two weeks)
file before the Committee on affidavit their statements of the compliance
effo;:ted by BCCI thus far of those recommendations which have been
fulfilled. The statement shall contain an elaboration of the manner in
which compliance has been made and the steps proposed to be taken to           F
fulfil the remaining directions of this Court. The Committee is at liberty
to verify the compliance statements filed on behalf of BCCI by its
President and Secretary. Both the President and the Secretary shall
appear before the Committee in person, and explain the steps taken for
compliance and the course of action to be adopted hereafter.
                                                                               G
        18. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf ofBCCI has stated
that in respect of some of the recommendations, where state associations
have not agreed to implement ~he recommendations of the Committee,
as accepted by this Court, BCCI will make a genuine endeavour to
persuade the state associations to effectuate compliance. Though BCCI
                                                                               H
832             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 9 S.C.R.



A     is in default and breach of the directions of this Court, in order to enable
      it to have an additional opportunity to establish its bona fides and to
      secure compliance with the judgment of this Court dated 18 July2016,we
      grant time until 3 December 2016 for the purpose. Besides complying
      with the direction set out above of filing statements and appearing before
      the Committee, BCCI shall report compliance before this Court on 5
B
      December 2016.
             19. For the reasons which have been contained in the present
      order of the Court, we are of the view that the issuance of certain
      additional directions has become inevitable, over and above those that
      are contained in the previous order dated 7 October 2016. We have
c     presently come to the conclusion that, primafacie,.there is substance in
      the status report submitted by the Committee. Implementation of the
      final judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016 has prima facie been
      impeded by the intransigence ofBCCI and its office bearers. However,
      having due regard to the submission made on behalf of BCCI that it
D     would make every genuine effort to persuade the state associations to
      secure compliance with 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 BCCI to demonstrate
      its good faith and the steps taken for compliance both before the
E     Committee in the first instance and before this Court by the next date of
      hearing. However, certain additional directions are warranted in the
      interest of maintaining transparency in the functioning ofBCCI, having
      regard to the sequence of events after 18 July 2016.
            20. We accordingly issue the following additional directions:-
F
            (i) BCCI shall forthwith cease and desist from making any
            disbursement of funds for any purpose whatsoever to any state
            association until and unless the state association concerned adopts
            a resolution undertaking to implement the recommendations of
            the Committee as accepted by this Court in its judgment dated 18
G           July 2016. After such a resolution is passed and before any
            disbursement of funds takes place to the state association
            concerned, a copy of the resolution shalt be filed before the
            Committee and before this Court, together with an affidavit of the
            President of the $tate association undertaking to abide by the
H           reforms contained in the report of the Committee, as modified by
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET
0
                                                                          833
 ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

    this Court. Any transfer of funds shall take place to the state        A
    associations which have accepted these terms only after
    compliance as above is effected. This direction is in addition to
    the previous direction of 7 October 2016 in regard to the
    disbursement to and appropriation by the state associations;
    (ii) (a) The Committee appointed by this Cou11 is requested to         B
    appoint an independent auditor lo scrutinise and audit the income
    received and expenditure incurred by BCCJ; (b) The auditor shall
    also oversee the tendering process that wi 11 hereinafter be
    unde11aken by BCCI, as well as the award of contracts above a
    threshold value to be fixed by the Committee; (c) The award of
    contracts by BCCI above the threshold fixed by the Committee
                                                                           c
    shall be subject to the prior approval of the Committee; (d) The
    Committee shall be at liberty to obtain the advice of the auditors
    on the fairness of the tendering process which has been adopted
    by BCCI and in regard to all relevant facts and circumstances;
    (e) The Committee will determine whether a proposed contract           D
    ;:ibove the threshold value should or should not be approved; and
    (t) The Committee will be at liberty to formulate the terms of
    engagement and reference to the auditors having regard to the
    above directions. BCCI shall defray the costs, charges and
    expenses of the auditors.
                                                                           E
    (iii) The President and Secretary ofBCCI shall within two weeks
    from today file a statement on affidavit indicating compliance made
    by BCCI of those of the recommendations of the Committee which
    have been complied with, the manner of compliance and the steps
    adopted for securing compliance with the remaining
    recommendations. They shall appear before the Committee to             F
    explain the manner of compliance. The President and Secretary,
    BCCI shall also keep the Committee apprised about the steps
    take11 pursuant to the statement recorded in paragraph 18 above.
    (iv) An affidavit of compliance shall be filed before this Court on
    or before 3 December 2016 by the President and Secretary to            G
    BCCI in terms of paragraphs 17 and 18 above; and
    (v) The Secretary to the Committee appointed by this Court shall
    forward a copy of this order to Mr Shashank Manohar, Chairman
    ICC to facilitate the observations contained in paragraph 11 of
                                                                           H
834               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 9 S.C.R.



A             this order.
            _ BC_CI shall cooperate with the Committee and with the auditors
       by granting, in particular, full access to records, accounts and other
       information as required to facilitate implementation of these directions.
              21. The hearing of the proceedings shall stand over to 5 December
 B 2016.


      · Divya Pandey                                              Matter adjourned.