Feature – Due Process: Case Comment on Azharuddin v. Board of Control for Cricket in India

Introduction

On November 8, 2012, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (“Court”) overturned the life-ban handed out to former Indian cricket captain, Mohammad Azharuddin (“Azharuddin”) by the Disciplinary Committee (“Committee”) of Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”) in 2000 for his alleged engagement in match-fixing.

• Headliner – Penny-Wise: Tax Structuring by Athletes through Incorporation
• Current Affairs - Emerging Law in Sports Broadcast and Proprietary Rights
• Learning Module – Immigration Procedures and Requirements for Athletes in the United States
• The Month in Sports Law News

Factual Background

In response to allegations of match-fixing and upon the completion of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (“CBI”) investigation in October 2000, the BCCI appointed a Commissioner to enquire into the conduct of cricketers alleged to have been involved in match-fixing. Thereafter, on the basis of the Commissioner’s report (“Report”), on December 5, 2000, the Committee concluded that Azharuddin was involved in match- fixing and through an order (“Order”) prohibited him, for life, from:

(i) playing cricket matches conducted or authorised by the International Cricket Council (“ICC”) or BCCI; and

(ii) holding any position in the ICC or BCCI, or any of their affiliate organisations.

In response to the Order, Azharuddin filed a civil petition in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad asking for the Order to be overturned as the constitution and operation of the Committee contravened the rules of the BCCI and the principles of natural justice.

In August 2003, the City Civil Court ruled in favour of the BCCI and upheld the Order. Pursuant to this ruling, Azharuddin filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of the City Civil Court.

Issues

The Andhra Pradesh High Court framed 11 issues, relating amongst others to the maintainability of the suit filed before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the competence and authority of the Committee, and the validity of the Order of the Committee. The key issues considered by the Court were:

(1) Whether the BCCI’s rules permitted the appointment of the Commissioner to undertake the enquiry into the allegations of match-fixing; and

(2) Whether the Committee and the BCCI had followed the principles of natural justice in the course of the enquiry.

Decision of the Court

Issue 1: Whether the BCCI’s rules permitted the appointment of the Commissioner to undertake the enquiry into the allegations of match-fixing

With respect to the first issue, the Court examined the rules of the BCCI (“Rules”), in particular Rule 38, which concerned the procedure for the conduct of proceedings in case of misconduct. In this regard, Azharuddin’s counsel argued that the appointment of the Commissioner to undertake the enquiry into the allegations of misconduct against Azharuddin was in excess of the authority granted by the Rules. As on the date of appointment of the Commissioner, Rule 38 of the BCCI Rules enabled the BCCI President to frame, or direct the Secretary to frame charges against the player who allegedly engaged in misconduct, and authorised the President to form a committee (comprising of three persons) to engage in an enquiry into the allegations of misconduct.