LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 382Decided 15 Mar 2019
Civil Appeal No. 2424 of 2019
Justice Ashok Bhushan · Justice K.M. Joseph

Background

Cricketer S. Sreesanth, playing for Rajasthan Royals in the 2013 IPL, was arrested by Delhi Police on allegations of spot-fixing during a match against Kings XI Punjab. The BCCI suspended him, and after a one-man inquiry and disciplinary proceedings under its Anti-Corruption Code, its disciplinary committee found him guilty of several corruption-related offences and imposed a lifetime ban from all cricketing activity in September 2013. Sreesanth challenged the ban years later, after he was discharged in the related criminal case and sought permission to play again, and the matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court's rulings.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings had not violated natural justice and that the BCCI committee's factual findings on the corruption charges were not perverse or baseless, so courts should not reassess disciplinary findings like an appellate body: judicial review only steps in for perversity or a complete absence of evidence. However, the Court found that while the Anti-Corruption Code allows a punishment range from a minimum of five years to a maximum lifetime ban for the proven offences, the disciplinary committee's order imposing the lifetime ban had failed to consider the mandatory aggravating and mitigating factors listed in the Code, making the maximum sanction unsustainable as imposed. The Court also noted Sreesanth's conduct after the ban (not challenging it initially, later seeking to play again) as relevant. It therefore partly allowed the appeal, setting aside only the lifetime-ban portion of the punishment and directing the BCCI's disciplinary committee to reconsider the quantum of sanction (giving Sreesanth a chance to be heard) within three months, while upholding the underlying finding of guilt.

Lesson Learnt

Even where a disciplinary body's finding of wrongdoing is upheld as sound and courts will not disturb it absent perversity, the punishment imposed must still follow the disciplinary code's own mandatory process, including weighing listed aggravating and mitigating factors, and a maximum penalty imposed without that process can be struck down even while the underlying guilt finding stands.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case