Supreme Court sets aside life ban on Kerala cricketer who sought Lodha committee reforms at District level

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the Kerala Cricket Association’s (KCA) decision to impose life ban on cricketer Santhosh Karunakaran and directed that his case be heard afresh [Santhosh Karunakaran vs. Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer, Kerala Cricket Association & Anr.]

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the Ombudsman's dismissal of Karunakaran's application for uniform cricketing bye-laws was not transparent.

The apex court also held Kerala High Court had taken a disproportionately harsh view in rejecting Karunakaran's challenge to the Ombudsman's decision.

The case arose from an application filed by Karunakaran before the Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer of the KCA in 2019. As a member of the Thiruvananthapuram District Cricket Association (TDCA), he had sought directions to frame and implement a uniform model byelaw across all district units of KCA in accordance with the Lodha Committee’s recommendations.

The application was rejected by the Ombudsman on October 3, 2020 on the ground that Karunakaran failed to implead the District Cricket Associations (DCA) despite specific directions issued earlier on February 13, February 25 and March 10, 2020.

Karunakaran challenged this rejection before the Kerala High Court. A single-judge dismissed his plea on January 27, 2021. His writ appeal against this order was also dismissed by a Division Bench on June 21, 2021.

After the dismissal of the writ appeal, the KCA issued a show cause notice to Karunakaran under Section 15(4)(s) of its bye-laws. Karunakaran replied to the notice on July 24, 2021.

A Special General Meeting was convened by the KCA on August 8, 2021 and the KCA communicated its decision to impose a life ban on Karunakaran by email on August 22, 2021, disassociating him from all its activities and affiliated units and forfeiting his rights as a registered member of the TDCA.

Before the Supreme Court, Karunakaran contended that the proceedings before the Ombudsman were non-transparent and that he was never informed about the orders directing impleadment of DCAs. He relied on emails addressed to the Ombudsman, requesting copies of records in the original proceedings.

The bench noted that the Ombudsman rejected this request through an email on the ground that Ombudsman is a persona designata and not a court of record.

The Supreme Court thus found merit in Karunakaran’s grievance regarding non-transparency.

“The appellant had made out a plausible case to suggest that the proceedings before the Ombudsman were non-transparent and that the copies of the relevant records/orders were not provided to the appellant,” the bench said.

It also took note of Karunakaran’s claim that the virtual hearing platform used during the original proceedings would frequently disconnect, making it difficult for him and his counsel to address the Ombudsman.

The Court further observed that an earlier order of the Ombudsman dated August 2, 2019 had recorded that impleading the DCAs may result in unnecessary delay, which gave rise to a reasonable belief that such impleadment was not mandatory.

It opined that the impleadment of the DCAs was also not necessary since Karunakaran had not approached the Ombudsman seeking anything adversarial in nature.

“Otherwise also, the only prayer of the appellant in the original application was to frame uniform Bye-laws in sync with the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee...Thus, the application filed by the appellant was not in form of any adversarial litigation requiring the mandatory opportunity of hearing to the DCAs,” the bench noted.

Thus, the Court set aside the Ombudsman’s order and the High Court's decisions and also quashed the KCA’s decision to blacklist Karunakaran and impose a life ban on him.

Additionally, it directed that Karunakaran's case be heard afresh by the Ombudsman which shall decide and pass a reasoned order within three months.

Karunakaran was represented by advocates MF Philip, K Pramod, Purnima Krishna, Karamveer Singh Yadav and Togin M Babichen.

The respondents were represented by advocates Ranjith KC, Manu Krishnan and Tarun Kumar.

[Read Judgment]