BCCI seeks review of SC's July 19 order, recusal of CJI

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Aug 16 2016 | 9:57 PM IST
BCCI today filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking review of its July 18 verdict in which it had accepted most recommendations of the R M Lodha panel on reforms in the cricketing body, saying the bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur had "a prejudiced approach" against it and he should recuse from hearing the matter.
The BCCI also contended that the judgement was "unreasoned" and "seeks to frame legislative measures for a private autonomous society in a field already occupied by legislations, both parliamentary and state".
BCCI further said the judgment authored by the CJI and Justice F M I Kalifulla (since retired) has "neither noted the contentions and facts correctly, nor dealt with the same".
"The judgment is unconstitutional and contrary to many binding precedents of this Court and adversely affects and nullifies the fundamental rights granted to citizens under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution," it said, adding "the judgment outsources judicial power to a committee of retired judges, which is impermissible in law."
"The judgment is a nullity as the judges were functus officio after passing of the main judgment of January 22, 2015 and the matter could not have been revived suo motu as no provision of law empowers the same and is contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers and contrary to settled law that the judiciary cannot make laws," the plea said.
However, the most important aspect of the review petition, which also demanded an open court hearing, is the plea for recusal of the CJI from hearing it alleging that there has been a "prejudiced approach" against BCCI.
"Chief Justice T S Thakur seems to have a prejudiced approach to BCCI which is evident by statements such as 'BCCI treatment' is to be meted out to another entity i.E. The All India Football Federation in another case, ex-facie shows that the Chief Justice has a closed mind and will summarily dismiss the review petition without listing the same before another bench of five judges for hearing in the open Court," it said.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Aug 16 2016 | 9:57 PM IST

Next Story