On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down the Kerala Cricket Association’s (KCA) decision to impose a life ban on former cricketer Santhosh Karunakaran, holding that the proceedings leading to his blacklisting lacked transparency. The Court further directed that Karunakaran’s original application before the KCA Ombudsman be restored and decided afresh within three months.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while allowing the appeal, observed, “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 case stemmed from a petition filed by Karunakaran, a former Ranji Trophy player and member of the Thiruvananthapuram District Cricket Association (TDCA), who had approached the KCA Ombudsman in 2019 seeking directions to frame and implement a uniform model byelaw across all district units of the Kerala Cricket Association (KCA) in line with the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee.
The Ombudsman, however, rejected his application, citing his failure to implead the District Cricket Associations (DCAs) despite earlier directions to do so. Karunakaran challenged this order before the Kerala High Court, but both a Single Judge and a Division Bench dismissed his petitions.
Subsequently, the KCA issued a show-cause notice under Section 15(4)(s) of its bye-laws and later imposed a life ban on Karunakaran, thereby disassociating him from the KCA and stripping him of all rights as a member of the TDCA.
The Bench noted that Karunakaran’s grievance regarding non-transparency in the Ombudsman’s proceedings had merit. The Court highlighted that the appellant had sought copies of records and orders in the original application proceedings, but these were denied on the grounds that the Ombudsman was a persona designata and not a court of record.
The Bench further observed that Karunakaran and his counsel had difficulty addressing the Ombudsman during the virtual hearings because the platform frequently disconnected. The Court also relied on an earlier Ombudsman order, which had stated that impleading the DCAs might cause unnecessary delay. The Bench observed that this circumstance created a “reasonable belief” in Karunakaran’s mind that impleadment of the DCAs was not obligatory, especially since his application was limited to seeking the framing of uniform byelaws and did not involve any adversarial claims.
As a result, the Court set aside the Ombudsman’s order, as well as the Kerala High Court’s judgments and the KCA’s decision imposing a life ban. The Bench directed that Karunakaran’s original application before the Ombudsman be revived and decided afresh after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing. “The original application shall be decided afresh by the Ombudsman by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this judgment,” the Bench ordered.
Case Title: Santhosh Karunakaran Vs. Ombudsman Cum Ethics Officer, Kerala Cricket Association And Another
Case No.: SLP (Civil) No(s). 12903 of 2021
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocate for Appellant: Advs. MF Philip, K Pramod, Purnima Krishna, Karamveer Singh Yadav and Togin M Babichen
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Ranjith KC, Manu Krishnan and Tarun Kumar
Picture Source :
