BCCI defends ban on Jadeja

The Board of Control for Cricket in India justified its five-year ban on cricketer Ajay Jadeja, on charges of match-fixing, in the Delhi high court on Wednesday, saying that there was plenty of evidence against him.

"There was plenty of evidence against him, some of it oral, on the basis of which action was taken," BCCI counsel K K Venugopal told Justice Mukul Mudgal, replying to Jadeja's civil writ petition challenging the ban.

Questioning the maintainability of the petition, the counsel said no remedy through a civil writ under Article 226 was against the board, as it was not a statutory body, nor was it performing any function of the state.

"The BCCI is an independent body constituted under the Societies Registration Act and if the petitioner (Jadeja) feels aggrieved for any of its actions, or breach of contract, he can file a suit for damage as no case for violation of fundamental rights under Article 226 of the Constitution can be made out against the board," Venugopal said.

Venugopal said the high court, while hearing a civil writ by former cricketer Mohinder Amarnath a few years ago against the BCCI, had ruled that the board was not a statutory body. Amarnath later withdrew his petition, he said.

Jadeja's counsel P P Malhotra alleged that the BCCI's action against his client was "malafide" as it was based on the Central Bureau of Investigation report, which neither recommended any action against some players nor had specified any offence against them.

"The CBI report itself stated that no offence is made out against the players under the Indian Penal Code,'' Malhotra said.

The BCCI counsel said the government, in an affidavit filed before a bench headed by the chief justice, hearing a public interest litigation seeking a probe into the BCCI's functioning, had also said that the board was not a statutory body.

When the court asked about the status of the Indian team when it represented the country abroad, Venugopal replied: "The selection of players is made by the BCCI independently, on the basis of merit, and the government has no say in it."

The BCCI, as a registered society, is affiliated to the International Cricket Council. Every player selected by the board has to sign a contract with it, he said.

"Even if a player feels that the contract is breached by such action by the board, the only remedy for him will be to claim damages through a civil suit," he added.

Jadeja's counsel said that BCCI investigator K Madhavan had drawn a conclusion about his client's "involvement" in match-fixing only on the basis of the CBI report, which had not specified charges against the players.

Madhavan had not given an opportunity to Jadeja to cross examine the witnesses, nor was he supplied any document, and such action was against natural justice and the Commission of Inquiry Act, he said.

"The CBI had relied on telephone bills of some persons who Jadeja did not know. If he had a conversation with an anonymous caller, how could he be held responsible? Is conversation on the telephone, when someone contacts somebody, an offence?" Jadeja's counsel asked.

Propriety demanded that the CBI should have confronted Jadeja with the documents, including the telephone bills, while probing the issue, he said.

Mail Cricket Editor