Supreme Court Overturns Life Ban on Kerala Cricketer, Orders Fresh Hearing
In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in sports administration, the Supreme Court of India has come to the rescue of a former Ranji Trophy cricketer who faced a lifetime ban from cricket activities for seeking reforms in Kerala’s cricket administration. The case involved Santhosh Karunakaran, a former Kerala state cricketer, who was blacklisted and handed a life ban by the Kerala Cricket Association after he approached the cricket body’s Ombudsman seeking implementation of Lodha Committee reforms at the district level. The Supreme Court’s judgment not only restores the cricketer’s rights but also sends a strong message about the need for transparent proceedings in sports governance.
The Cricketer’s Quest for Reforms
The legal battle began when Santhosh Karunakaran, a former Ranji Trophy player representing Kerala and a member of Thiruvananthapuram District Cricket Association, approached the Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer of Kerala Cricket Association by filing Original Application No. 10 of 2019. His petition sought straightforward reforms: he requested the Ombudsman to frame model bylaws for implementation across all districts in Kerala in line with the Lodha Committee recommendations adopted by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). He also sought directions for the Kerala Cricket Association to conduct elections ensuring representation from each district in conformity with these bylaws. What seemed like a legitimate effort to bring transparency and uniformity to cricket administration in Kerala turned into a nightmare for the former cricketer.
The Ombudsman’s Controversial Decision
The Ombudsman rejected Karunakaran’s application on October 3, 2020, citing his failure to implead the District Cricket Associations despite what the Ombudsman claimed were clear directions issued through orders dated February 13, 2020; February 25, 2020; and March 10, 2020. This technical ground became the basis for dismissing the application that sought to implement much-needed reforms in cricket administration. The appellant’s fundamental grievance was that the proceedings before the Ombudsman were completely non-transparent, and he was never made aware of these orders directing impleadment of District Cricket Associations. To support his claim, Karunakaran produced emails dated October 19, 2020, and October 28, 2020, addressed to the Ombudsman, requesting copies of all records of the proceedings. The Ombudsman, in a response dated November 5, 2020, denied this request on the ground that the Ombudsman of KCA is a persona designata and not a court of record, and since the original application had been disposed of, the proceedings could not be provided.
The High Court’s Harsh Stance
When Karunakaran challenged the Ombudsman’s order before the Kerala High Court through Writ Petition (Civil) No. 28478 of 2020, the learned Single Judge rejected his petition on January 27, 2021. The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed this decision on June 21, 2021, dismissing his Writ Appeal No. 413 of 2021. The High Court took an exceptionally harsh view, concluding that the appellant had approached the court with unclean hands and had concealed material facts. This dismissal had severe consequences for the former cricketer, opening the doors for punitive action by the cricket association.
The Draconian Punishment
Following the rejection of his writ appeal, the Kerala Cricket Association issued a show cause notice to Karunakaran under Section 15(4)(s) of the Byelaws of KCA. The appellant replied to this notice on July 24, 2021. The KCA then held a Special General Meeting on August 8, 2021, to discuss action against him. Through an email dated August 22, 2021, the KCA communicated its decision to blacklist Karunakaran from all activities and imposed a life ban on him, thereby disassociating him from KCA and its affiliated units and forfeiting all his rights and privileges as a registered member of Thiruvananthapuram District Cricket Association. This extreme punishment effectively ended his association with the sport he had represented at the state level.
The Supreme Court’s Intervention
The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal, took a completely different view of the matter from the High Court. The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that “the High Court has taken a very harsh view in rejecting the writ petition and the writ appeal preferred by the appellant on the purported ground of concealment of material facts concluding that the appellant had approached the writ court with unclean hands.” The Court found merit in the appellant’s contention about the lack of transparency in the Ombudsman’s proceedings.
The Supreme Court noted that “the appellant had made out a plausible case to suggest that the proceedings before the Ombudsman were non-transparent and that the copies of the relevant records/orders were not provided to the appellant.” The documents and communications placed on record revealed that “many a times, it became difficult for the appellant and his counsel to address the Ombudsman during the proceedings of the original application because the virtual hearing gateway was frequently interrupted without any justification.”
The Reasonable Belief Defense
One of the key factors that weighed in favor of the appellant was an earlier order passed by the Ombudsman. The Court noted that “the earlier order dated 2nd August, 2019, passed by the Ombudsman observing that the impleadment of the DCAs may entail unnecessary delay, definitely gave rise to a reasonable belief to the appellant that he was not under any obligation to implead the DCAs in the original application filed before the Ombudsman.” This created a legitimate expectation for the appellant that he could proceed without impleading all District Cricket Associations.
The Supreme Court also made a significant observation about the nature of the application itself, stating that “the application filed by the appellant was not in form of any adversarial litigation requiring the mandatory opportunity of hearing to the DCAs.” The appellant’s prayer was essentially for framing uniform bylaws in synchronization with the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee recommendations, which was more of a reform-oriented petition rather than a contentious litigation between parties.
The Landmark Relief
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court declared: “As an upshot of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2020 passed by the Ombudsman and judgments dated 27th January, 2021 and 21st June, 2021 passed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the decision of the KCA in blacklisting the appellant is also struck down and set aside.”
The Court didn’t stop at just setting aside the punitive actions but also revived the original application, directing that “the proceedings of the Original Application No. 10 of 2019 filed by the appellant before the Ombudsman shall stand revived. The concerned parties shall be provided an opportunity of hearing, and the original application shall be decided afresh by the Ombudsman by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this judgment.”
Broader Implications for Sports Governance
This judgment has far-reaching implications for sports governance in India. By emphasizing procedural fairness and transparency, the Supreme Court has set important precedents for how sports bodies should deal with members who raise legitimate concerns about governance reforms. The Court’s decision to quash the life ban sends a strong message that sports administrators cannot use punitive measures to silence voices seeking transparency and reform.
The ruling also clarifies the responsibilities of quasi-judicial bodies like Ombudsmen in sports organizations. By insisting that proceedings must be transparent and parties must have access to records, the Court has elevated the standards expected from such internal dispute resolution mechanisms. The judgment reinforces that even when dealing with internal administration, sports bodies must adhere to principles of natural justice and fair play.
For countless sports professionals and enthusiasts across India, this judgment serves as a reassurance that they can raise their voices for reform without fear of vindictive actions. It balances the need for discipline in sports organizations with the fundamental right of members to seek improvements in governance. The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case not only justice for an individual cricketer but also strengthens the foundations of democratic functioning within sports bodies across the country.
Petitioner Name: Santhosh Karunakaran.Respondent Name: Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer, Kerala Cricket Association and Another.Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta.Place Of Incident: Kerala.Judgment Date: 29-07-2025.Result: allowed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: santhosh-karunakaran-vs-ombudsman-cum-ethics-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-07-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Corporate Governance
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Other Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Sandeep Mehta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2025
See all petitions in 2025 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
