Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the BCCI disciplinary findings against Sreesanth but set aside the lifetime-ban sanction for reconsideration. The inquiry afforded a fair opportunity and the evidence-based findings did not warrant appellate reappraisal in judicial review. However, the committee had failed to consider the Code’s mandatory aggravating and mitigating factors before imposing the maximum sanction. Sreesanth had to await its fresh punishment decision; the disciplinary findings did not determine the separate criminal proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the disciplinary findings were vitiated by procedural unfairness or evidentiary defects.
- Whether criminal discharge displaced the disciplinary decision.
- Whether the lifetime ban complied with the Code’s sanction framework.
Provisions considered
- Articles 6.1.1, 6.1.2 and 6.2, BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for ParticipantsThe committee had to weigh relevant aggravating and mitigating factors within the permissible sanction range; a lifetime ban was not automatic on proof of corruption. (¶¶ 54–58, 60–61)
Held
- The appellant possessed the conversation transcripts, received the inquiry reports and show-cause notice, and had an opportunity to answer. His post-custody statement was considered in a supplementary report; procedural unfairness was not established. (¶ 23–25)
- The committee could assess the evidence and explanations. The disciplinary findings had evidentiary support and were not shown perverse or unsupported, so judicial review could not substitute a fresh assessment of sufficiency or competing inferences. (¶¶ 27–35, 60(2))
- The burden objection failed on the material and opportunity afforded here, while mere doubt could not suffice for a disciplinary finding. Criminal discharge concerned different statutory ingredients and did not displace the Code decision; these findings were expressly without effect on the pending criminal appeal. (¶ 36–40)
- The belated challenge to the committee’s composition failed; no legal impediment to Srinivasan’s participation on the relevant date was established. (¶¶ 41, 60(5))
- Zero tolerance did not dispense with individualised sanction assessment. The permitted corruption range was five years to lifetime ineligibility, requiring consideration of the Code’s aggravating and mitigating factors. Their omission invalidated the maximum sanction; the other concurrent sanctions required no separate reconsideration here. (¶ 52–59)
- Only the lifetime-ban sanction was set aside. The committee was to hear the appellant on quantum and decide afresh preferably within three months; he was to await that decision. (¶ 61)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Misconduct findings upheld; lifetime-ban sanction alone set aside for BCCI reconsideration under Article 6 after hearing the appellant, preferably within three months. Appellant to await that decision. Parties to bear own costs; criminal proceedings unaffected.