EX Supreme Court Justice Markandeya Katju calls SC judgement on BCCI and Lodha Committee Unconstitutional,asks BCCI to file review petition

[Malcolm Merlyn]

BCCI is not giving up.And Katju seems to be making some valid points.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

HArsh words used by Justice Katju.

[FischerTal]

BCCI is not a public institution. how can legislative branch deliberate about this topic?

 

its a private body which is being investigated by SC on the basis of a complaint. i agree that lodha panel recommendations are extreme, especially the ad one, but to say lodha or SC cannot give judgement in the case is simply not true.

Edited August 7, 2016 by FischerTal

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Quote

New Delhi: The Supreme Court verdict on the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) reforms on Sunday came under a sharp attack from former apex court judge Markandey Katju, who termed the reforms as “unconstitutional and illegal”.

Katju, who has been appointed by the BCCI to advice on the Supreme Court verdict on implementation of the justice Lodha committee recommendations, also advised the board to file a review petition before a larger bench of the apex court and not to meet the committee as scheduled on 9 August terming the panel “null and void”.

“What the Supreme Court has done is unconstitutional and illegal. There has been violation of principles of the Constitution. Under our Constitution, we have legislature, executive and judiciary. There is broad separation of functions. It’s the legislature’s prerogative to make laws. If judiciary starts making laws, one is setting a dangerous precedent,” Katju said at a media conference.

“I have advised them (BCCI) to file a review petition before a larger bench. In this case, the Supreme Court outsourced a committee (referring to Lodha committee) to decide on BCCI’s punishment,” he said.

BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke, however, said the BCCI will study the interim report prepared by justice Katju and then take a call.

“The Supreme Court had appointed the Lodha committee to find the defects in the working of BCCI. That was okay. When the Lodha committee report was submitted to the Supreme Court, it should have been forwarded to Parliament and state legislatures. It then should have been left to legislature to accept or not to accept the recommendations. Judiciary is not supposed to legislate,” Katju said, elaborating his viewpoint.

He gave examples of cases where a larger bench with four or five judges have handled serious issues. Justice Katju’s take is that since BCCI’s constitution has been prepared as per Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, both the SC and Lodha committee can’t forcibly change the BCCI by-laws.

“Both Supreme Court and Lodha committee violated Tamil Nadu Societies Registrar Act. They have their own memorandum and by-laws. If you want to change the Constitution, a special resolution needs to be passed by two-thirds majority. The society alone can amend the by-laws. There can be complaints on financial irregularities or administrative lapses; one has to write to the registrar of societies.”

Katju said “reforms are needed in the BCCI” but he also had a counter argument. “If we speak about reforms in BCCI, then reforms are needed in judiciary also. There are more than three crore cases pending in Indian courts. And if this dangerous trend starts, tomorrow, the Supreme Court might dictate editorial policies of press, tenure of journalists. It will then open a Pandora’s box”.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/ex-judge-katju-asks-bcci-to-ignore-lodha-panel-file-review-plea-in-supreme-court/story-BIUd4EGtjTFwUIpljMZhAK.html

[Malcolm Merlyn]

@FischerTal

 

Read the above article.There is no law under which SC can ask and direct private bodies about who should be their office bearers,when they should retire,how many terms etc.That is to be decided by that body.By interfering in these processes Supreme Court is inventing and amending laws,which they cannot do.Its not their job.The SC can give judgements but it cannot make laws according to its whims and fancies.For making a amendment 2/3rd majority of legislature is needed and not just the opinion of 2 judges.

 

Supreme court cannot run this country through its orders.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Malcolm Merlyn

[FischerTal]

26 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

@FischerTal

 

Read the above article.There is no law under which SC can ask and direct private bodies about who should be their office bearers,when they should retire,how many terms etc.That is to be decided by that body.By interfering in these processes Supreme Court is inventing and amending laws,which they cannot do.Its not their job.The SC can give judgements but it cannot make laws according to its whims and fancies.For making a amendment 2/3rd majority of legislature is needed and not just the opinion of 2 judges.

 

Supreme court cannot run this country through its orders.

if legislative has problem with a judgement of the Supreme court or its investigative panels, it can easily override that judgement through voting in Parliament. until then, the judgement stands. katju can file complaint but the result of this complaint will be the same. instead of filing review petition, bcci should have gone straight to parliament and ask them to deliberate on this matter to end this once and for all.

Edited August 7, 2016 by FischerTal

[Malcolm Merlyn]

if legislative has problem with a judgement of the Supreme court or its investigative panels, it can easily override that judgement through voting in Parliament. until then, the judgement stands. katju can file complaint but the result of this complaint will be the same. instead of filing review petition, bcci should have gone straight to parliament and ask them to deliberate on this matter to end this once and for all.

The courts cannot ask you to follow a law that doesnt exist.Thats what SC is doing in this case.And pvt bodies cannot move to the parliament.What they can do is file a reveiw petition pointing out the mistakes in a judgement.Thats what Katju has asked them to do.But common sense shows that Supreme court is misusing its powers and asking BCCI to follow laws that simply are not there.

Remember the SC has no accountability and they strike down any law that tries to make judges accountable.In last 5-6 years SC is trying to rule this country through its judgements.When Katju was a Judge in SC he had mentioned this in a judgement that SC should stay away from interfering in the functioning of other organs of the constitution.

[FischerTal]

18 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

The courts cannot ask you to follow a law that doesnt exist.Thats what SC is doing in this case.And pvt bodies cannot move to the parliament.What they can do is file a reveiw petition pointing out the mistakes in a judgement.Thats what Katju has asked them to do.But common sense shows that Supreme court is misusing its powers and asking BCCI to follow laws that simply are not there.

Remember the SC has no accountability and they strike down any law that tries to make judges accountable.In last 5-6 years SC is trying to rule this country through its judgements.When Katju was a Judge in SC he had mentioned this in a judgement that SC should stay away from interfering in the functioning of other organs of the constitution.

BCCI has enough politicians running it that it can certainly trigger a debate in parliament if it wants to. 

 

BCCI itself says it was registered as per Tamil Nadu societies registration act, which makes it answerable to the government of Tamil Nadu, which itself is answerable to the government of India. Previous judgements have maintained that BCCI is not a private body but a quasi-private body that discharges a public function. When the BCCI goes to international tournaments, their players don't have BCCI written on their t-shirts, but India. they are not representing a private club, but a nation. 

 

 supreme court or lodha are not making new law, but clearly saying that BCCI is violating existing law and using that as a basis to make recommendations to improve the game of cricket in India.

 

Source- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/As-a-society-BCCI-answerable-to-TN-govt/articleshow/20302654.cms 

 

'As a society, BCCI answerable to TN govt'

A Subramani| TNN | May 28, 2013, 04.40 AM IST

 

 

CHENNAI: BCCI president N Srinivasan may remain defiant, refusing to step down in the face of his son-in-law and CSK's former team principal Gurunath Meiyappan's arrest over charges of betting in IPL, but jurists argue that the Tamil Nadu government can step in to stem the rot if the stench of conflict of interest and financial irregularities spreads further in Indian cricket's apex governing body.

"BCCI is a society which was registered in Tamil Nadu in the 1930s under the then Madras Societies Act and then continued to be an entity controlled by the TN Societies Registration Act, 1975. The state's registrar of societies can initiate a preliminary inquiry and then follow it up with a show-cause notice," said R Natarajan, who was the first to drag the BCCI and its then strongman Jagmohan Dalmiya to court a few years ago.

"There were even attempts to shift the BCCI's registered office from Chennai to Mumbai. It was, however, challenged and foiled," said Natarajan.

Section 36 of the Act empowers the inspector-general of registration and the district registrar concerned to inquire into financial mismanagement, malfeasance and contravention of other Rules, either suo motu or on petition from a majority or one-third members of the society concerned.

Such exemplary measures as the issuing of show-cause notice and even appointment of a social officer are also being suggested by jurists.

"A society has its own bylaws and rules. There is no scope for an outsider to come and say you are not running the society properly. But, the government can step in if the society is not run properly. If need be, issuing show-cause notice and appointing a special officer should be done within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act," said K Chandru, a former judge of the Madras high court.

 

"In the Music Academy case, the authorities initiated an inquiry and even set criminal proceedings in motion following complaints," said former advocate general of Tamil Nadu N R Chandran. "In BCCI's case, the government does have the power to step in if the management and activities of the Board of Trustees go against the Act and Rules," he said.

 

 

 

In 2005, BCCI even took a stand that its activities were beyond the purview of the state as well as the jurisdiction of courts. It is now a settled position that BCCI is a society, but it is amenable to writ proceedings because it is discharging a public function.

 

 

 

"In the Zee Telefilms case, the Supreme Court has finally held that managing cricket affairs, conducting tournaments and telecasting matches are public duties of BCCI. Going by that logic, IPL and the fairness of its activities too can be monitored by the registrar who is the competent authority to regulate the affairs of a registered society," said advocate S Elambharathi.

 

 

 

However, while agreeing that the state government has the power to step in, senior advocate and former advocate-general K Subramanian said the state government needs to have objective material before it can act. "In the ongoing controversy, where is the complaint or evidence? If actionable evidence is available, they might act," he said.

 

"BCCI should have a credible mechanism to deal with relatively new challenges such as betting and match-fixing," he said, indicating that, otherwise, it would be left to the government to perform its duty.

Edited August 8, 2016 by FischerTal

[sandeep]

This "private body" argument doesn't hold water.  BCCI is running sports administration for the entire country and a team that represents the country.  BCCI has benefited from tax free earnings, free or next-to-nothing costs for land, stadiums, security and other government services precisely because it is not just a "private body".  They get this because they are handling a national team. They cannot claim immunity from any form of accountability based on being a private body.  The IPL can, but BCCI cannot.  

 

Having said that, some of the Lodha committee recommendations were OTT, but because the BCCI dragged its feet and did not really co-operate with them, they are in this situation.  If they had worked with them, they could have had more input into the required reforms.  

[gakgupta]

22 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

@FischerTal

 

Read the above article.There is no law under which SC can ask and direct private bodies about who should be their office bearers,when they should retire,how many terms etc.That is to be decided by that body.By interfering in these processes Supreme Court is inventing and amending laws,which they cannot do.Its not their job.The SC can give judgements but it cannot make laws according to its whims and fancies.For making a amendment 2/3rd majority of legislature is needed and not just the opinion of 2 judges.

 

Supreme court cannot run this country through its orders.

It's such a shame that Indian cricket team is a private body.....Now BCCI should stop using word "INDIA" for scorecard or elsewhere.....it should start using word BCCI....In that case, it will be interesting to see how many indian citizens would be interested to follow cricket

[Malcolm Merlyn]

It's such a shame that Indian cricket team is a private body.....Now BCCI should stop using word "INDIA" for scorecard or elsewhere.....it should start using word BCCI....In that case, it will be interesting to see how many indian citizens would be interested to follow cricket

All sporting federations are pvt bodies.The Olympic FIFA ICC rules forbid any govt intervention in the sporting bodies.

[gakgupta]

21 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

The courts cannot ask you to follow a law that doesnt exist.Thats what SC is doing in this case.And pvt bodies cannot move to the parliament.What they can do is file a reveiw petition pointing out the mistakes in a judgement.Thats what Katju has asked them to do.But common sense shows that Supreme court is misusing its powers and asking BCCI to follow laws that simply are not there.

Remember the SC has no accountability and they strike down any law that tries to make judges accountable.In last 5-6 years SC is trying to rule this country through its judgements.When Katju was a Judge in SC he had mentioned this in a judgement that SC should stay away from interfering in the functioning of other organs of the constitution.

what should country do when people like srinivasan are mis-using this private body (BCCI)?

BTW, this private body belongs to public

[gakgupta]

All sporting federations are pvt bodies.The Olympic FIFA ICC rules forbid any govt intervention in the sporting bodies.

Okie......

What if powerful people like srinivasan bend the PRIAVTE Body rules for personal benefits

Just sit and watch....

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

[kirkutfan]

Why hasn't the Supreme Court gone after other sports bodies? Is hockey better managed than cricket?

[Malcolm Merlyn]

what should country do when people like srinivasan are mis-using this private body (BCCI)?

BTW, this private body belongs to public

What was done when Blatter ruled FIFA for 20 years?

And no it doesnot belong to Public as it uses no tax payers money.

[gakgupta]

What was done when Blatter ruled FIFA for 20 years?

And no it doesnot belong to Public as it uses no tax payers money.

Somebody has done something wrong somewhere should not become a benchmark....

If it doesn't belong to public, then it should stop using word INDIA....that way country citizens doesn't associate themselves this so called private body.....same expectation should be set for players that thy are not playing for country, they are playing for a PRIAVTE Body called BCCI...I m sure lot o players will stop playing for zeal and our cricket body will become something like WICB

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Somebody has done something wrong somewhere should not become a benchmark....

If it doesn't belong to public, then it should stop using word INDIA....that way country citizens doesn't associate themselves this so called private body.....same expectation should be set for players that thy are not playing for country, they are playing for a PRIAVTE Body called BCCI...I m sure lot o players will stop playing for zeal and our cricket body will become something like WICB

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

No one has a trademark on India.Many companies use India in their names.

All sporting federations are private bodies so BCCI isnt an exception.

And all sporting bodies starting from the international ones to domestic ones have their own rules and thats their right.Just because you dont like someone doesnt mean rules can be overriden.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

BCCI has enough politicians running it that it can certainly trigger a debate in parliament if it wants to. 

 

BCCI itself says it was registered as per Tamil Nadu societies registration act, which makes it answerable to the government of Tamil Nadu, which itself is answerable to the government of India. Previous judgements have maintained that BCCI is not a private body but a quasi-private body that discharges a public function. When the BCCI goes to international tournaments, their players don't have BCCI written on their t-shirts, but India. they are not representing a private club, but a nation. 

 

 supreme court or lodha are not making new law, but clearly saying that BCCI is violating existing law and using that as a basis to make recommendations to improve the game of cricket in India.

 

Source- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/As-a-society-BCCI-answerable-to-TN-govt/articleshow/20302654.cms 

 

'As a society, BCCI answerable to TN govt'

A Subramani| TNN | May 28, 2013, 04.40 AM IST

   

CHENNAI: BCCI president N Srinivasan may remain defiant, refusing to step down in the face of his son-in-law and CSK's former team principal Gurunath Meiyappan's arrest over charges of betting in IPL, but jurists argue that the Tamil Nadu government can step in to stem the rot if the stench of conflict of interest and financial irregularities spreads further in Indian cricket's apex governing body.

"BCCI is a society which was registered in Tamil Nadu in the 1930s under the then Madras Societies Act and then continued to be an entity controlled by the TN Societies Registration Act, 1975. The state's registrar of societies can initiate a preliminary inquiry and then follow it up with a show-cause notice," said R Natarajan, who was the first to drag the BCCI and its then strongman Jagmohan Dalmiya to court a few years ago.

"There were even attempts to shift the BCCI's registered office from Chennai to Mumbai. It was, however, challenged and foiled," said Natarajan.

Section 36 of the Act empowers the inspector-general of registration and the district registrar concerned to inquire into financial mismanagement, malfeasance and contravention of other Rules, either suo motu or on petition from a majority or one-third members of the society concerned.

Such exemplary measures as the issuing of show-cause notice and even appointment of a social officer are also being suggested by jurists.

"A society has its own bylaws and rules. There is no scope for an outsider to come and say you are not running the society properly. But, the government can step in if the society is not run properly. If need be, issuing show-cause notice and appointing a special officer should be done within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act," said K Chandru, a former judge of the Madras high court.  

"In the Music Academy case, the authorities initiated an inquiry and even set criminal proceedings in motion following complaints," said former advocate general of Tamil Nadu N R Chandran. "In BCCI's case, the government does have the power to step in if the management and activities of the Board of Trustees go against the Act and Rules," he said.      

In 2005, BCCI even took a stand that its activities were beyond the purview of the state as well as the jurisdiction of courts. It is now a settled position that BCCI is a society, but it is amenable to writ proceedings because it is discharging a public function.      

"In the Zee Telefilms case, the Supreme Court has finally held that managing cricket affairs, conducting tournaments and telecasting matches are public duties of BCCI. Going by that logic, IPL and the fairness of its activities too can be monitored by the registrar who is the competent authority to regulate the affairs of a registered society," said advocate S Elambharathi.      

However, while agreeing that the state government has the power to step in, senior advocate and former advocate-general K Subramanian said the state government needs to have objective material before it can act. "In the ongoing controversy, where is the complaint or evidence? If actionable evidence is available, they might act," he said.  

"BCCI should have a credible mechanism to deal with relatively new challenges such as betting and match-fixing," he said, indicating that, otherwise, it would be left to the government to perform its duty.

1.There are bigger debates in the parliament which can be used for votebanks.

2.As i said no one has a trademark on India.Many companies also use India in their name.That is no big deal.

3.If any BCCI rules are broken the SC can adjudicate the dispute like it did in the Conflict of interest case of Srini.That was fine.

But there are no rules saying people shouldnot head BCCI after age of 70 or Office bearers cannot hold more than 3 terms or Who should be members of BCCI etc etc.These rules are being forced upon BCCI.The TN societies act has no such bindings.By making these rules SC is amending and inventing acts and rules which is not their job.SC has no power to force on rules and laws that dont exist.Am I Clear now?

4.And if the PM of this country can be above 70 and can have as many terms as he likes as long as he is elected then how can SC force such restrictions on the BCCI?

[beautifulgame]

It's Markandeya Katju . Seriously engaging him as their legal counsel lol

But it sums up how incompetent BCCI has been through the entire case .

[Malcolm Merlyn]

1 hour ago, beautifulgame said:

It's Markandeya Katju . Seriously engaging him as their legal counsel lol

But it sums up how incompetent BCCI has been through the entire case .

 

He is a retired SC judge and have given some landmark judgements.

 

Quote

 

-In Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy.S.P. and later in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, he emphasized on judicial restraint and the impropriety of the judiciary encroaching into the legislative or executive domain. He re-iterated this two years later, while he was a Supreme Court Judge, in the case of .

 

-While dealing with the issue of judges initiating "Contempt of Court" proceedings, he observed that the authority of judges rests on public confidence, and not on the power of contempt. The Indian jurist Fali S Nariman commended Katju's view in his article "A judge above contempt" published on 5 August 2005 in the Indian Express.

 

- Following this judgement, in the case of Md Sukur Ali Vs State of Assam, a division Bench of Katju and Justice Mishra ruled that criminal defendants have a right to counsel. "Article 21 which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty is the most important of all the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the constitution," the apex court bench said. They further observed that, "In the absence of a counsel, for whatever reasons, the case should not be decided forthwith against the accused but in such a situation the court should appoint a counsel who is practising on the criminal side as amicus curiae and decide the case after fixing another date and hearing him," This judgment received both national and international recognition

 

-Katju's opinion in D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal], delivered on 21 October 2010, relating to the maintenance of a woman in a live-in relationship, was the first time the apex court laid the legal framework for recognizing a woman's rights in a live-in relationship.

 

-Katju issued notices to the Centre and state governments directing them to file compliance reports on steps taken to rehabilitate sex workers in the case of Budhadev Karmaskar vs State of West Bengal. The accused had brutally murdered a sex worker and claimed leniency in his petition in the Supreme Court, citing the victim's profession. The court dismissed the petition, stating that "prostitutes have a right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." The court further observed that "This is a case of brutal murder of a sex worker. Sex workers are human beings and no one has a right to assault or murder them."

 

-In a judgement delivered on 1 February 2011, Katju highlighted the malaise of land-grabbing of village community land by private and commercial entities. He noted that the purpose of village community land is community benefit like schools, playgrounds, water storage facilities etc., hence he directed the state governments to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal occupants of this land.

 

-On 8 March 2011, Katju delivered a "landmark" judgement legalizing passive euthanasia—or withdrawal of life-support systems—for patients who are brain dead or in a permanent vegetative state, and whom doctors have lost hope of reviving even with the most advanced medical aid. The detailed process of passive euthanasia includes strict guidelines that must be met, including a case-by-case review of medical condition by a team of court-appointed doctors and prior approval of the High Court.The Judge further observed that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, according to which attempt to suicide was a criminal offence, was archaic and needed review. He said, "A person attempts suicide in a depression, and hence he needs help, rather than punishment. We therefore recommend to Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 from the Indian Penal Code."The judgement received widespread commendation as "brave", well researched and "path breaking"

 

Some of them are above.