S. SREESANTH versus THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.

S. SREESANTH versus THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.

The disciplinary committee proceedings did not violate principles of natural justice; burden and standard of proof were correctly applied under Article 3.1; discharge in criminal case has no bearing on disciplinary inquiry; disciplinary committee constitution was not vitiated; imposition of life ban was not in accordance with Article 6 due to lack of consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors; disciplinary committee is required to revisit quantum of punishment giving appellant an opportunity to be heard.

Parties
Appellant: S. Sreesanth; Respondent: Board of Control for Cricket in India; Respondent: Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Disciplinary Proceedings of BCCI
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Natural Justice, Judicial Review, Burden and Standard of Proof, Sentencing Discretion Under Sporting Codes
Sport Law Administrative Law Disciplinary Proceedings Natural Justice Judicial Review Burden and Standard of Proof Sentencing Discretion Under Sporting Codes

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 7 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Sreesanth

Appellant

Board of Control for Cricket in India

Respondent

Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Disciplinary Proceedings of BCCI

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether principles of natural justice were violated in BCCI's disciplinary proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary committee was correct in its application of burden and standard of proof under Article 3.1 of Anti-Corruption Code
  3. 3 Whether discharge in criminal proceedings affects disciplinary action under BCCI code

Ratio Decidendi

The disciplinary committee proceedings did not violate principles of natural justice; burden and standard of proof were correctly applied under Article 3.1; discharge in criminal case has no bearing on disciplinary inquiry; disciplinary committee constitution was not vitiated; imposition of life ban was not in accordance with Article 6 due to lack of consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors; disciplinary committee is required to revisit quantum of punishment giving appellant an opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • The order of life time ban imposed by disciplinary committee is set aside to that extent.
  • Disciplinary committee to reconsider quantum of punishment/sanction as per Article 6 of Anti-Corruption Code.