Supreme Court Lifts Life Ban on Kerala Cricketer Advocating Lodha Committee Reforms

Facts of the Case

In 2019, an Original Application was filed before the Ombudsman of the Kerala Cricket Association by Santosh Karunakaran, a former Ranji trophy player and member of the Thiruvananthapuram District Cricket Association.

He wanted to frame model byelaws in accordance with recommendations made by the Lodha Committee and also have uniform elections for all the units in the districts. It is established that the Ombudsman ordered him to implead district associations on several occasions, but he never furnished him with copies of such orders.

After the Ombudsman’s order was upheld by the Kerala High Court, Karunakaran questioned the dismissal of his application in October 2020, which occurred because he had failed to implead the District Cricket Associations. Thereafter, he moved up to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Provisions Involved

The important principle involved in the case was Section 15(4)(s) of the Kerala Cricket Association bye-laws, which stated that the Ombudsman could issue directives to implead the parties.

Also under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, Karunakaran claimed natural principles of justice on the ground that he was not given a fair hearing. The Ombudsman took the stand that, since he was persona designata and not a court of record, there was no obligation on his part to disclose the records after the application was disposed of.

Fundamental Issues Addressed by the Court

It questioned the Supreme Court regarding the application of the basic rules of fair play and transparency to a sports body’s inner forum. To start with, the Court indicated that by instructing parties to be present without revealing the orders is tantamount to a violation of the right to be heard.

An individual cannot fulfill the demands if he is not informed about them. Second, the Court emphasized that even a persona designata is expected to make use of procedures as though on a quasi-judicial exercise with scrupulous fairness. Third, the Court refrained from concluding that Karunakaran approached the High Court in an unclean manner, as there was no concealment of material facts.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the October 3, 2020, order of the Ombudsman along with the two orders of judgment of the High Court dated January 27 and June 21, 2021.

It even quashed the life ban the Kerala Cricket Association had placed on Karunakaran. The Supreme Court has instructed the Ombudsman to reinstate the initial application, provide all parties with duly certified copies of every order, and conduct new hearings within three months. The Court emphasized that the minimum amount of fair procedure was the time handed down in reasoned orders and a chance to answer them

Implications for Sports Governance

In this landmark decision, the court has stated that sports governing bodies cannot be allowed to avoid constitutional pursuit when playing adjudicator roles. Although they may be exclusive groups, they are required to give all their members notice of adverse decisions as well as give them a hearing.

The verdict supports the rule of law that justice should not only be served but also be perceived to be served either in a court of law or in a cricketing council.

Conclusion

The case of Santosh Karunakaran highlights the importance of transparency and a fair hearing in dispute resolution. The Supreme Court has been able to establish a clear direction for all sporting entities by insisting that all orders must be fully disclosed and that there must be rehearings. The public now has high expectations that through internal forums, decisions at any association will be made in a reasonable way and within the basic right to fair process.