LALIT KUMAR MODI versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS.

LALIT KUMAR MODI versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS.

The Disciplinary Committee was validly constituted under Rule 1(q) in view of the necessity arising from the President’s recusal. The mere apprehension of institutional bias without evidence of real danger does not warrant interference. Extensions and refusal to recuse by members was valid; law and society rules do not contemplate a vacuum and permit substitution.

Parties
Petitioner: Lalit Kumar Modi; Respondent No. 1: Board of Control for Cricket in India; Respondents: Other Respondents
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Petition Challenging Three Orders of Bombay High Court
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitution of Disciplinary Committees, Doctrine of Necessity, Institutional Bias
Society Law Administrative Law Constitution of Disciplinary Committees Doctrine of Necessity Institutional Bias

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lalit Kumar Modi

Petitioner

Board of Control for Cricket in India

Respondent No. 1

Other Respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Petition Challenging Three Orders of Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disciplinary Committee of BCCI was validly constituted after the President’s recusal
  2. 2 Whether members of the Committee suffered from institutional bias
  3. 3 Whether extension of the Committee’s term and refusal to recuse by members was valid

Ratio Decidendi

The Disciplinary Committee was validly constituted under Rule 1(q) in view of the necessity arising from the President’s recusal. The mere apprehension of institutional bias without evidence of real danger does not warrant interference. Extensions and refusal to recuse by members was valid; law and society rules do not contemplate a vacuum and permit substitution.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
  • Parties to bear their own costs.