S. Sreesanth’s Ban Overturned: Supreme Court Orders BCCI to Revisit Lifetime Suspension

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of S. Sreesanth vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), addressing the disciplinary action taken against cricketer S. Sreesanth. The case revolved around allegations of spot-fixing during the 2013 Indian Premier League (IPL) season, leading to a lifetime ban imposed by the BCCI.

The Supreme Court examined multiple aspects of the case, including the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proof, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the cricketer. The Court ultimately set aside the life ban, directing the BCCI to reconsider the quantum of punishment.

Background of the Case

S. Sreesanth, a former Indian cricketer, was accused of involvement in spot-fixing during an IPL match in 2013. The Delhi Police arrested him on May 16, 2013, under allegations of engaging in corrupt practices during the game between Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab. The BCCI responded by suspending him and later conducting an internal disciplinary inquiry.

The one-man inquiry commission of BCCI found sufficient evidence against Sreesanth based on audio recordings and video clips of the alleged fixing incident. The disciplinary committee found him guilty under various provisions of the BCCI’s Anti-Corruption Code and imposed a lifetime ban, barring him from all forms of cricket.

Arguments of the Petitioner

Sreesanth challenged the BCCI’s decision, raising the following key arguments:

• The disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice, as he was not confronted with the telephone conversations that were relied upon to prove his guilt.
• The BCCI failed to provide concrete evidence of his involvement in spot-fixing, and there was no direct proof linking him to any corrupt activity.
• He never received any illegal monetary benefits, and his performance in the match was not indicative of any pre-arranged fixing.
• The Kerala High Court’s decision to reinstate his ban was unjust, as the criminal court had already discharged him of criminal charges.
• The quantum of punishment—lifetime ban—was excessively harsh and disproportionate to the alleged offense.

Arguments of the Respondents

The BCCI defended its decision, arguing that:

• The disciplinary proceedings followed due process, and Sreesanth was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.
• Recorded conversations clearly indicated a pre-arranged deal for spot-fixing, with references to monetary transactions.
• Even though the criminal case against him was dismissed, disciplinary proceedings under the BCCI’s code were independent of criminal prosecution.
• The presence of a towel in Sreesanth’s pocket during the over, as per the fixing agreement, was a crucial corroborative piece of evidence.
• Considering the nature of the offense, a severe punishment was necessary to uphold the integrity of cricket.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzed various aspects of the case and made the following key observations:

• The disciplinary proceedings did not violate natural justice, as Sreesanth was aware of the evidence against him.
• The standard of proof in disciplinary inquiries differs from criminal trials. While criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, disciplinary proceedings rely on the preponderance of probability.
• The burden of proof was correctly placed on the BCCI to establish the allegations, and the evidence presented was sufficient to prove misconduct.
• The BCCI was within its rights to impose a sanction on Sreesanth, but the disciplinary committee failed to consider mitigating factors before imposing a lifetime ban.
• The principle of proportionality should apply when determining punishment, and imposing the maximum sanction without justification was unreasonable.

Final Judgment and Relief Granted

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court held that while Sreesanth was guilty of violating the BCCI’s Anti-Corruption Code, the lifetime ban was excessive. The Court, therefore, ruled as follows:

• The life ban imposed on Sreesanth was set aside.
• The BCCI was directed to reconsider the quantum of punishment within three months.
• Sreesanth was given the opportunity to present his case regarding the appropriate sanction.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for disciplinary actions in Indian sports. It reinforces the principle that while maintaining integrity in sports is crucial, penalties must be proportionate and justified. The Court also reaffirmed that disciplinary actions should be distinct from criminal proceedings but must adhere to principles of fairness.

Following the judgment, the BCCI was expected to review the case and determine a revised sanction, allowing Sreesanth a potential return to cricket.

Petitioner Name: S. Sreesanth.
Respondent Name: The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Mohali, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 15-03-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: S. Sreesanth vs The Board of Control Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category