BCCI questions Jadeja's claim
The Board of Control for Cricket in India on Thursday told the
the Delhi high court that cricketer Ajay Jadeja, banned for five
years on charges of match-fixing, cannot claim any relief for
violation of fundamental rights, as the board has the power to take
action against a player for "misconduct" even on suspicion.
"If the BCCI finds that the conduct of a player is not good then he cannot to be considered for selection in the team
though he might be an icon. The board can suspend a player if
there is suspicion of misconduct against him even if there is
no hard evidence," BCCI counsel Kapil Sibal told Justice Mukul
Mudgal, who was hearing Jadeja's petition, challenging the ban.
Asserting that the board does not perform any of the
functions of the state, Sibal said the team selected by the BCCI
to play matches with foreign teams, "does not represent India
as a state, but is a BCCI team representing India."
Thus, Sibal said since the board is not performing any of the state's
functions, Jadeja cannot claim any relief under Article 226
of the Constitution, and, as such, the cricketer's petition should be dismissed.
"He cannot even claim any damage through a civil suit, as the BCCI has no contract with him at present," he said.
The contract with a player is always signed by the board
after he is selected to a team for a particular season, either
to play Test matches or one-dayers in the country or abroad,
Sibal said, adding that the BCCI rules are clear on this.
However, Jadeja's counsel P P Malhotra said the BCCI cannot not
shirk the responsibility of performing the duty of state so
far as the management of the game of cricket is concerned.
"The team bears the Indian flag and players' badges also
say that they represent India," he said.
The arguments from both sides were confined to the issue
of maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
Jadeja's counsel said: "The scope of Article 226, under
which any citizen can move the high court for seeking relief
for violation of his rights, is very wide and, as such, a right can
be enforced against a state, its authorities or a person."
He said the board, which gets various types of
concessions, including land on nominal price for stadia,
security assistance for organising matches, relief on Income
Tax and entertainment taxes, cannot not claim that it has
nothing to do with the state.
"The BCCI is an authority set up to manage, regulate and
conduct the game of cricket in the country and performs all
functions which a state is supposed to do," he said, adding any
person aggrieved by the BCCI's action has a right to claim relief
from the court.
Malhotra said even the government in its affidavit had stated that it
is supplementing the efforts of the BCCI in promoting the game
in India by providing it various facilities. Then how could it
"shirk" from the responsibility?, he asked.
Jadeja, in his civil writ, has sought quashing of the ban
as well as Union Sports Ministry's notice to him, seeking
an explanation why the Arjuna award conferred on him should not
be taken back.
The BCCI had imposed a life ban on former captain Mohammad Azharuddin and Ajay Sharma, while Jadeja and Manoj Prabhakar were banned for five years.
Mail Cricket Editor
