BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA versus CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS.
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 819, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Hearing Adjourned
Segment: Arguments
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 819 
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA 
v. 
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4235 of20 I 4) 
OCTOBER21, 2016 
[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 
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 
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 -
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 -
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: 
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 
819 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
820 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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] 
H 
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
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET · 821 
ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS. 
WITH 
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 
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, 
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. 
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 
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 
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 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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." 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D. Y. C.HANDRACHUD, J.] 
impediment undermining not onty 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". 
This Court has noted that in spite of a directjqn issued by the 
Committee on 21August2016 that theAGM ofBCCI which was to be 
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 
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 
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 · 
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" · 
. 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 
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 
823 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
824 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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". 
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 
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
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET 
ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J .] 
the Committee's recommendations) would amount to 'governmental 
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 
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 
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 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 
place between Mr. Shashank Manohar and Mr. Anurag 
· Thakur during a meeting in Dubai wherein a clarification 
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 
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 
825 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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." 
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 
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 
ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
during the ICC governance review committee meeting on 
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 
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 
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 
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". 
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 
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 
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 
827 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
828 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] .9 S.C.R. 
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, 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET 
ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
the working of the BCCI especially in relation to 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
829 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
830 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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. 
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 
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. 
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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
832 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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:-
(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 
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 
reforms contained in the report of the Committee, as modified by
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA v. CRICKET 
0
ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
this Court. Any transfer of funds shall take place to the state 
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 
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 
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 
;: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. 
(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 
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 
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 
833 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H

834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
this order. 
B 
_ 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 
2016. 
· Divya Pandey 
Matter adjourned.