Team no.

AIM-15
4th AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2016

BEFORE THE HONBLE

HIGH COURT OF GODAM

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2016
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GODAM

ALTAF ASLAM AND OTHERS...PETITIONER

v.
BOARD OF CRICKET CONTROL OF GODAM.RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT OF GODAM

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of abbreviations................3
Legislation..4
Case laws........................................6
Books .7
Legal database7
Lexicon...7
Statement of Jurisdiction8
Statement of Facts.....9-13
Statement of Issues...14
Summary of Arguments...15
Arguments Advanced.16-23
I .Whether the Writ Filed by the Petitioner is Maintainable?..................................................16
II. Whether B.C.CGo was covering up the pie by giving clean chit from the very
beginning?................................................................................................................................19
III. Whether Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were found guilty of match-fixing and spotfixing?.......................................................................................................................................22
III.1.Whether

Hank

Jefferson

and

Liam

Jackson

were

guilty

of

Cheating.23
Prayer of Relief........................................................................................24

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Para

ACUT

Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal of IFC

AIR

All India Reporter

Art.

Article

B.C.CGo

Board of Cricket Council of Godam

BCCI

Board of Cricket Council of India

BOD

Board of Directors

Bom.

Bombay

CAI

Central Agency of Investigation

CAS

Court of Arbitration of Sports

CBI

Central Bureau of Investigation

Ch

Chapter

COM

Committee

Comp LJ

Company Law Journal

DEL

Delhi

DELHC

Delhi High Court

DLT

Delhi Law Times

ED

Enforcement Directorate

Ed

Edition

GPL

Godam Premier League

HC

High Court

Honble

Honourable

i.e

That is

ICC

International Cricket Council

IFC

International Federation of Cricket

J.

Judge

KR

Kondra Ranges

LLJ

Law Library Journal

MK

Mandeva Kites

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

MP

Madhya Pradesh

MPHC

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ors.

Others

Pg. no.

Page Number

PIL

Public Interest Litigation

PMLA

Prevention of Money Laundering Act

SC

Supreme Court

SCC

Supreme Court Reports

SCR

Supreme Court Reporters

U.S.

United State

u/a

Under Article

v.

Versus

Viz.

That is to say

LEGISLATIONS
1. Constitution of India, 1950
Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose.
2. Anti-Corruption Code of ICC
Article 1.1.2 Public confidence in the authenticity and integrity of the sporting contest is
therefore vital. If that confidence is undermined, then the very essence of cricket will be
shaken to the core.
Article 1.7.2 states that where a Participants alleged Corrupt Conduct would amount solely
to a violation of the anti- corruption rules of a National Cricket Federation (whether such
Corrupt Conduct actually relates to a Domestic Match or not), the relevant National Cricket
Federation will have the exclusive right to take action against the Participant under its own

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

anti-corruption rules. And it is also clearly stated that the authorities have all the powers to
take action against those participants who are involved into such practices, irrespective of it
being a domestic match or an international match.
Article 1.7.3.2.2 the National Cricket Federation in whose jurisdiction the match(es)
was/were played will have the priority right and responsibility to take action under its anticorruption rules against any Participant who participated on behalf of, or who was in any
way associated with, or whose Corrupt Conduct was related to, the participating domestic,
guest or invitational team in the International Tour Match;
3. Players Code of Conduct of Indian Premier League
Article 2.1.8 where the facts of the alleged incident are not adequately or clearly
covered by any of the above offences, conduct that either: (A) is contrary to the spirit of the
game; or (b) bring the game into disrepute.
4. BCCI Memorandum and Rules and Regulations
Rule 8 (n): Powers and Duties of the Board:
In addition to and without prejudice to the generality of powers conferred directly or by
necessary implication under these Rules and

regulations and

the Memorandum of

Association, the Board shall exercise the powers and perform the duties hereafter mentioned:
(n) To take disciplinary action against a player, match official, administrator, member of the
Board.
5. Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 350. Criminal force.-Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that
persons consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such
force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury,
fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that
other.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

CASE LAWS
1. Ambalal Sarabhai and Ors. v. Phiris H. Antia..AIR 1939 Bom. 35 1938
Indlaw MUM 34
2. Binny Ltd. And Anr. v. Sadasivan and OrsAIR 2005 SC 320
3. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors...(2005)
4 SCC 741
4. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India............AIR 1990 SC 1480
5. Cricket Association of Bihar and another v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and
another ...2015 Indlaw SC 44, (2015) 3 SCC 251, AIR 2015 SC
3194.
6. Evans v. Newton382 US 296 15 L.Ed.-2nd 373,
Ch 614 = 1963 1 All. E.R. 590 and New York v. United States 326 US 572
7. Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd..(1990) 3 SCC 752;
AIR 1990 SC 1031: (1990) 2 SCR 69.
8. Marsh v. Alabama.(3) 326 U.S. 501: 19 L. ed. 265
9. New York v. United States.. 326 US 572
10. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others..2002
Indlaw SC 322: (2002) 5 SCC 111: (2002) SCC (LS) 633
11. Rahul Mehra and Anr v .Union of India and Ors....................2004 Indlaw DEL
813; 2005 (4) CompLJ 268; 2004 (114) DLT 323
12. Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Ors(1975) 1 SCC 485
13. Shri Prakash Mishra vs. Sports Authority of India...(19.08.1989
- MPHC) 1990 (2) LLJ 416MP
14. Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagatram and Ors....AIR 1975 SC 1331

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Jain M P, Indian Constitutional Law with constitutional law, 6th edition (volume 1)
Lexis Nexis
2. Jain M P, Indian Constitutional Law with constitutional law, 6th edition (volume 2)
Lexis Nexis
3. De D J, The Constitution of India, 3rd edition (volume 1)
4. De D J, The Constitution of India, 3rd edition (volume 2)
5. Pandey Dr.J.N. The Constitutional Law of India, 50th edition
6. Bakshi P.M., The Constitution of India, 13th edition
7. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, 27th edition 1992

LEGAL DATABASES
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. WestLaw
4. Lexis Nexis

LEXICON
1. Garner Bryana, Blacks Law Dictionary,7th Edition,1999

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached the Honble High Court of Godam under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Godam, 1950. The Appellant reserve the right to contest the jurisdiction of
this Honble Court.
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to
any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within
those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for
the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose.

All of which is most respectfully submitted

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS (COMPROMIS)

1. Godam Premier League (hereinafter referred to as GPL), in 20-20 format was few
months away from its 7th edition in Burgan. Board of Cricket Control of Godam
(hereinafter referred to as B.C.CGo) is the parent body responsible for all the
activities related to cricket in Godam subcontinent.
2. Despite of smooth launching in 2009, GPL did face some instability in the 5th edition,
2013 where a club named as Kondra Ranges (KR) was found guilty of match fixing
and spot fixing. KR was owned by a media tycoon Takishi who also owned an
airline Company named Pace Airways which is also official partner of the
competition. Every time any allegation popped up, it was always subdued by
explanations from Takishi and clean chit was given to KR by B.C.CGo. Xerxese
Morennio, was the Commissioner of GPL and business development manager of
B.C.CGo. Xerxese and Takishi were batch mates from the same business school.
3. KR was questioned for its irregularities, as in matters related to submission of
franchise money, misconduct shown by its players, involvement in offences like
match fixing and spot fixing. In 5th edition for the Chairman of B.C.CGo, Niladris1
was dethroned and Don Makofusa came to power.
4. For the first time allegations on KR were taken seriously. Thereafter notice was issued
and KR was asked to explain the violation of certain IFCs Anti-Corruption Code
protocols2 thus was banned by IFC to take part in any activity related to cricket. Apart
from it a penalty of Rs 60 crore as a fine was imposed on it which was to be submitted
within a period of 4 months. KR also had an option either to go into appeal to the
CAS3 , within 21 days from the order but in spite of it, KR chose to serve the
punishment and paid the sum within a month. KR came up with a press release
withdrawing its contention from GPL and declaring dissolution. Takishi was also
banned by IFC, continued as the official partner.
5. Xerxese appointed Peter Woodford as coach for KR in 5th edition. Woodford, a highly
envied batsman and never had a clean image. The appointment was highly criticised
by the media over which Xerxese answered that the allegations were made but none
were proved and, Woodford is a person who is much needed by the game thus GPL is
in this regard is fortunate to have his presence. A news article was published by a
1

Takishi was related to both Niladris and Don Makofusa. Niladris was his father in law and Don Makofusa
was his first cousin.
2 Certain players were involved in bypassing security measures on and off the grounds, skipping WADA
checkups and giving abrupt statements to media.
3 Court of Arbitration of Sports.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

senior journalist Altaf Aslam according to which GPL was dwelling under the shades
of demons of match-fixing and spot-fixing and levels of corruption are absolutely
high.
6. After KR was banned by IFC, shocking incident took place. Peter Woodford was
found dead in his hotel room, the dead body was found naked with apart from his
luggage, laptop, 2 mobile phones, and very expensive watches were recovered. Before
his death he made several calls, out of which some were made to his relative including
calls made to Zia Kuriet and Xerxese.
7. For the 6th edition, a new team named as Mandeva Kites (MK) entered as a new
franchise. The team involved 8 players who were ex-players of KR including the
captain of KR. The majority shares were held by Tutis Olanga4 . The major share
owners of K.R. were the sweat equity share holders of the new Mandeva Kites i.e.,
Zia Kuriet5 , Kaifi Shaik6 , and Gogo Morrenio7 .
8. MK in the 6th edition lost the semi-finals by 95 runs against Canoro Bulls. The same
situation had arose twice in the seasons play offs, where MK lost matches due to low
run after fall of all the wickets involving mostly run outs. This so called ambiguity
somewhere showed some malpractice on behalf of MK. The questions related to
transfer of liability on MK which made them to answer the bar imposed on KR
because the new club MK was a result of manipulation of the existing system. MK
answered the speculations saying that the club is a new entity, with a new
constitution, with a new article of association and with a different governing board of
directors, so liability by all means should not be imposed on us.
9. Two players of MK, Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were found guilty of matchfixing and spot fixing on the directions of the bookie named as Abu Zawahar. Action
was taken by the Anti-Corruption unit of IFC. B.C.CGo was directed to conduct board
inquiries against the players and the team. Upon the directions of IFC, B.C.CGo
ordered the management of MK to show cause as to why the players got involved in
such an anti-sport activity. MK never showed any cause but submitted the resignation
of these 2 players with an explanation that the resignation is our way to show protest
against the speculation made by the governing council on their honesty. Both the
players claimed themselves to be incorruptible.

4
5
6
7

Step son of the IFC Chief Putul Tutis Olanga.

wife of Rajgopala who was a member of parliament and a renowned politician.
owner of Betshet a betting portal incorporated in Netherlands where betting is legal.
cousin of Xerxes Morrenio the GPL commissioner.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

10

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

10. The players filed an appeal with Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal of IFC challenging the
expulsion. An article written by Altaf Aslam in which he revealed himself to be a
good friend of Peter Woodford and declared that the 2 players Hank and Liam
admitted that they were guilty of match-fixing and spotfixing but simultaneously
made and accusation that they were the vulnerable sentinels and innocent despite of
being guilty. The players stated that GPL is a venture undertaken by celebrity
politicians and government officials thus huge money wealth and fame is involved,
thus, at any point they did not feel safe taking the help of public official and hence
they came to Altaf Aslam. They confessed that GPL has three categories of players.
These two players were Category 3 (players selected from state or club team) players.
11. They were forced to engage into malpractices for which they received huge sums of
money. Survival not only became their need but also a qualification because of which
they can achieve the ultimate goal i.e., to play for the country and going against the
management will be a foolish action. They confessed that everybody including
B.C.CGo and Xerxese were the part of this misendeavour. They stated that they have
taken the stand not to escape from the liability but to make the people and fans of
cricket aware of this injustice against them.
12. Later, the people compelled Rajgopala to resign as from being the Minister of
Information Broad Casting. B.C.CGo denied all the allegations as baseless and more
of a publicity stunt to tarnish the image of GPL and upon Peter Woodford case stated
that a detailed investigation had already been done and bringing these baseless facts
would do no good as the case had already been decided.
13. Upon the confession of Hank and Liam, who imposed liability not only upon Xerxese
Morrenio for malpractices but upon this, B.C.CGo gave vague and self-contradictory
statements stating that it had always taken strict and lawful steps as and when
required, although it never took any action upon this issue and instead gave vague and
self-proclaimed assumption, denying all allegations, giving clean chit to KR and the
Xerxese Morrenio. While clean chit was given by the B.C.CGo, IFC restricted MK to
take part in any world event, which was challenged in ACUT8 which clubbed both
causes of the suspended players and restrictions imposed on MK together.
14. B.C.CGo also held a press release and made a declaration to appoint a commission in
association with IFC to investigate the scams that were going around. Xerxese was
suspended by B.C.CGo and not only this a complaint was filed in the Enforcement
8 Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal of IFC.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

11

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

Directorate (ED) by it under section 4 of PMLA in relation to a multi-million deal
between Meghe sports and FSL regarding T.V. rights on GPL worth Rs 600 crore in
2010. Subsequently, ED in the year 2012 filed the case in the Court of Session against
Xerxese Morrenio.
15. A PIL was filled by Altaf Aslam in the Honble Supreme Court of Godam (hereinafter
referred as S.C), upon which an order was passed directing B.C.CGo to look into the
matter. IFC also made a declaration by an ordinance rendering the authority of
B.C.CGo under question, taking all the proceeding related to cricket in the country
under their hand.
16. B.C.CGo made an 11 member committee including the Board of Directors (BOD) and
empires, to inquire upon the matter and prepared a detailed report Committee 1. The
inquiry was done in camera. The report was tabled before S.C and IFC. S.C rightly
rejected it as there were reported instances of misendeavour in it. S.C also criticized
IFC action to accept the report without any reservation to raise question. Keeping
BOD in the committee was explained as these officials had the occupancy of some
important documents, so keeping them would lead to inconvenience and delay, so the
case needs to be expeditiously inquired.
17. Another PIL was filed by Czar Leh, an empire working for IFC but a resident of
Godam challenging the findings of Committee 1. Before filing this PIL, IFC also
faced elections and Niladris became the Chairman of IFC who was once dethroned.
SC was convinced that Committee1 was influenced thus directed B.C.CGo to conduct
a fresh enquiry and no BOD member shall be a part of the committee. B.C.CGo did
the same and formed Committee 2 Report. B.C.CGos incompetency to file a
consolidated report was criticised.
18. S.C passed an order directing the Central Agency Investigation (CAI) to investigate
the matter and file the charge sheet within one month. CAI filed the same in the
special court. Accusations were imposed on Xerxese, B.C.CGo and the three sweat
equity owners of MK. The charges were framed related to corruption , murder, match
fixing, spot fixing and other offence in other appropriate laws that deemed fit.
19. However similar to Committee 2 report CAI made inferences that certain important
documents were missing and it was nobodys fault but B.C.CGo. It is to be noted that
B.C.CGo was booked for the first time as a party with reasons stated that B.C.CGo
was responsible for all the incompetent reports and that B.C.CGo was the facilitator

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

12

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

and was trying to cover up the garbage with mud and putting up a flag of green
revolution.
20. CAI court there was another case pending where B.C.CGo and Xerxese were charged
with corruption over which hearing on sentence was pending. The CAI court stated
that no hearing can be done as the fact of case depends on the judgement of Honble
High Court of Godam, hereinafter referred to as H.C. The case is pending in appeal in
the H.C of Godam where in addition to the matter in appeal the matter referred by IFC
is also consolidated, therefore the points raised as above are to be considered with
respect to parties appearing referring to the procedures of High Court of Godam.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

13

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I:

Whether the writ filed by the petitioner is maintainable?

ISSUE II:

Whether B.C.CGo was covering up the pie by giving clean chit from the very
beginning?

ISSUE III:

Whether Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were found guilty of match-fixing and
spot-fixing?
Whether Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were guilty of cheating?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

14

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue I
Whether the writ filed by the petitioner is maintainable?
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that present PIL is maintainable against
Board of Cricket Control of Godam (hereinafter referred to as B.C.CGo) and others being a
state u/a 12 of the Constitution of Godam.

Issue II
Whether B.C.CGo was covering up the pie by giving clean chit from the very
beginning?
The Counsel asserts that B.C.CGo was covering all the allegations put up on KR with
sufficient explanations. This submission is two-fold: (i) B.C.CGo failed to perform its public
duty, and (ii) B.C.CGo never questioned KR or Takishi and just gave clean chit every time.

Issue III
Whether Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were found guilty of match-fixing and spotfixing?
The Counsel brings to the notice of the Honble Court that the petitioner i.e, Altaf Aslam
declared that the two players Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson admitted that they were guilty
of match fixing and spot fixing but simultaneously made an accusation that they were the
vulnerable sentinels and innocent despite of being guilty.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

15

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE WRIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that present Public Interest Litigation is
maintainable against Board of Cricket Control of Godam (hereinafter referred to as B.C.CGo)
is a state u/a 12 of the Constitution9 for the purpose of this issue.
Article 226 provides that notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have
power, throughout the territorial limits in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue
any person or authority including the appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories, directions, orders of writs in any nature- (a) for the enforcement of fundamental
rights conferred by Part III, and (b) for any other purpose. Further, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Godam, the Court confines itself to the question of infringement of any other
purpose.10
In Rahul Mehra and Anr . vs . Union of India and Ors 11 , it was held that if a public duty
or public function is involved, anybody, public or private, qua that duty or function and
limited to that, would be subject to judicial scrutiny under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction
of Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The definition of State is not confined to a Government Department and the Legislature,
but extends to any action-administrative (whether statutory or non-statutory), judicial or
quasi-judicial, which can be brought within the fold of State action being action which
violates a fundamental right.
The Counsel would bring to the notice of the Honble Court that B.C.CGo being a private
body is a state as even a private body may be State and this could be seen in the case
Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.12
I.1 Maintainability
The impugned action is violation of the rights enshrined in the Part III of the Constitution of
Godam and relief is sought for its enforcement.

9 Constitution of Godam, Pari Materia to Constitution of India hereinafter referred as Constitution.

10 Article 226 -Power of High Courts to issue certain writs (Constitution of Godam).
11 ( 04 . 10 . 2004 - DELHC ) 2004 Indlaw DEL 813, 2005 (4) CompLJ 268, 114(2004)DLT323.
12 (1990) 3 SCC 752; AIR 1990 SC 1031: (1990) 2 SCR 69.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

16

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

Where the public injury was suffered by a determinate class of persons for the breach of a
public duty or from violation of the constitutional provisions, any member of the public
having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for such public injury.
The principle was qualified by the reservation that such petitioner should act bona fide and
not for personal gain or private profit, nor moved by political or other public motivation. The
doctrine of standing has thus been enlarged in this country to provide, where reasonably
possible, access to justice to large section of people for whom, so far it has been a matter of
despair.
The person or the group of persons are approaching the Court in public interest for redressal
of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of
the Constitutional Law of Godam.
Further, the litigation initiated in the public interest was such that if not remedied or
prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of judiciary and the
democratic set up of the country. The person approaching the court has come with clean
hands, clean heart and clean objectives is an important essential.
Public Function is one which seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a
section of the public.13 Institutions engaged in performing public functions are, by virtue of
the functions performed, government agencies. 14 Further under the well-established Doctrine
of Parens Patriae, it is the obligation of the State to protect and take into custody the rights
and the privileges of its citizens for discharging its obligations. 15
The present petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, since, B.C.CGo
falls within the ambit of other authorities as enshrined u/a 12 of the Constitution.
In the case Board of Control for Cricket in India and Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club and
Ors.16 , the Court held that:80. The Board is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration
Act. It enjoys a monopoly status as regards regulation of the sport of cricket in
terms of its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. It controls the
sport of cricket and lays down the law therefor. It inter alia enjoys benefits by way
of tax exemption and right to use stadia at nominal annual rent. It earns huge
13
14
15
16

Binny Ltd. And Anr. v. Sadasivan and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 320 11.
Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagatram and Ors AIR 1975 SC 1331.
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480, 35.
(2005) 4 SCC 741.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

17

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

revenue not only by selling tickets to viewers but also selling right to exhibit films
live on TV and broadcasting the same. Ordinarily, its full members are the State
associations except Association of Indian Universities, Railway Sports Control
Board and Services Sports Control Board. As a member of ICC, it represents the
country in the international fora. It exercises enormous public functions. It has the
authority to select players, umpires and officials to represent the country in the
international fora. It exercises total control over the players, umpires and other
officers. The Rules of the Board clearly demonstrate that without its recognition no
competitive cricket can be hosted either within or outside the country. Its control
over the sport of competitive cricket is deeply pervasive and complete.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that, B.C.CGo being an instrumentality of the state for the
purposes of regulating the game of cricket being the parent body falls within the ambit of
Other Authorities as enshrined u/a 12 of the Constitution.
It also was noted in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
and others 17 where the court observed that:
31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some
duties like the selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the
players and others involved in the game of cricket. These activities can be said to
be akin to public duties or State functions and if there is any violation of any
constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party
may not have a relief by way of a petition under Article 32. But that does not mean
that the violator of such right would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a
State. Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for the
violation of a right of a citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not
available, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary course
of law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is
much wider than Article 32.
Therefore, the PIL is maintainable against B.C.CGo in the instant case.
It is the also the matter of known fact that a Right of access the High Court under Article 226
is a Fundamental Right itself.

17 2002 Indlaw SC 322: (2002) 5 SCC 111: (2002) SCC (LS) 633.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

18

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

Mathew J., in his concurring judgement referred to Marsh v. Alabama18 to hold that even
where a corporation is privately performing a public function it is bound by the constitutional
standard applicable to all State actions.
In the case Evans v. Newton19 to declare that if the functions of the corporation are of public
importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in
classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of the State. Having said that this
Court recognized the fact that the Board was discharging some duties like the Selection of
Indian Cricket Team, controlling the activities of the players

which activities were akin to

public duties or State functions so that if there is any breach of a constitutional or statutory
obligation or the rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to seek redress
under the ordinary law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
which is much wider than Article 32.
In Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Ors.20 , this Court held that Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research even when registered as Society was State within the meaning of
Article 12.
B.C.CGo is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 even when it is not

State within the meaning of Article 12. The rationale underlying that view if we may say
with utmost respect lies in the nature of duties and functions which the B.C.CGo performs.
Hence, the writ filed by the petitioner is maintainable.

II. WHETHER B.C.CGO WAS COVERING UP THE PIE BY GIVING CLEAN CHIT
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING?
The Counsel will begin by giving reference to the facts of the instant case where B.C.CGo
was covering all the allegations put up on KR with sufficient explanations. This submission is
two-fold: (i) B.C.CGo failed to perform its public duty, and (ii) B.C.CGo never questioned
KR or Takishi and just gave clean chit every time.

18 (3) 326 U.S. 501: 19 L. ed. 265.

19 382 US 296 15 L.Ed.-2nd 373, Ch 614 = 1963 1 All. E.R. 590; New York v. United States 326 US 572.
20 (1975) 1 SCC 485.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

19

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

II.1. B.C.CGo failed to perform its public duty:B.C.CGo is the parent body responsible for all the activities related to cricket in Godam
subcontinent. It is the duty of the Board to take disciplinary action against a player, match
official, administrator, member of the Board21 . This is also mentioned in the Anti-Corruption
Code of IFC.
Article 1.7.3.2.2: the National Cricket Federation in whose jurisdiction the match (es)
was/were played will have the priority right and responsibility to take action under its anticorruption rules against any Participant who participated on behalf of, or who was in any
way associated with, or whose Corrupt Conduct was related to, the participating domestic,
guest or invitational team in the International Tour Match.
The B.C.CGo claims to have adopted the Anti-Corruption Code for achieving, what it
describes as certain fundamental sporting imperatives. We may fruitfully reproduce those
fundamental sporting imperatives only to highlight that the B.C.CGo is, by the standards set
by it, duty bound to ensure that the game of cricket is played in accordance with those
sporting imperatives not only because the game itself is described as a gentlemans game but
also because adherence to sporting imperatives alone can maintain the public confidence 22 in
its purity. The B.C.CGo has, as will appear from a plain reading of the imperatives set out in
the Rules, committed itself in no uncertain terms to maintaining public confidence in the
game.
Article 1.7.2 states that where a Participants alleged Corrupt Conduct would amount solely
to a violation of the Anti- Corruption rules of a National Cricket Federation (whether such
Corrupt Conduct actually relates to a Domestic Match or not), the relevant National Cricket
Federation will have the exclusive right to take action against the Participant under its own
Anti-Corruption rules. And it is also clearly stated that the authorities have all the powers to
take action against those participants who are involved into such practices, irrespective of it
being a domestic match or an international match.
The Board should look to serve a larger public good viz. to find out the veracity of the serious
allegations of sporting frauds like spot fixing, match fixing and betting by those who were not
only participants in the tournaments played but also managing the affairs of the B.C.CGo
21 As per the B.C.CGo. rules and regulations and the Memorandum of Association, Rule 8 (n).
22 Article 1.1.2 Public confidence in the authenticity and integrity of the sporting contest is therefore vital. If
that confidence is undermined, then the very essence of cricket will be shaken to the core.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

20

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

giving rise to serious issues of conflict of interest adversely affecting the game so popular in
this country that any fraud as suggested was bound to shake the confidence of the public in
general and those who love it in particular.
The petitioner brings to the notice of the Honble Court that there were certain important
documents and testimonies of case which went missing. Further the CAI also made inference
that the documents were missing and it was nobodys fault but B.C.CGo.
II.2. B.C.CGo never questioned KR:KR was questioned by the media many a times in the past due to irregularities shown by it, as
in matters related to submission of franchise money, sometimes related to misconduct shown
by its players, sometimes due to involvement in offences like match-fixing and spot-fixing.
It is also to be taken into consideration that the allegations on KR were taken seriously for the
first time when Don Makofusa was elected as the Chairman of B.C.CGo. Niladris was the exchairperson of B.C.CGo and also the father in law of Takishi (the owner of KR). The players
of KR were involved in match fixing and also spot fixing. The members were also involved
in certain Anti- Corruption activities. When Niladris was in power, allegations on KR were
always subdued. A similar thing was noticed in the Indian Premier League 2013 case23 when
the Chairman of Board of Cricket Council of India, N.Srinivasan was trying to protect his son
in law, Gurunath Meiyappan from allegations of spot-fixing scandals.
In the case Shri Prakash Mishra vs. Sports Authority of India24 it was held that there is an
obligation on the appointing authority to make a finding and record reasons, though the same
may not be communicated to the petitioner. Also, in the present case B.C.CGo had an
obligation to make appropriate findings on the misconduct shown by KR.
It is also clearly stated that All players and officials that take part in the top level of
international cricket pass through the ACUs education programme in this process they
groom the players as to how the penalties will be imposed for any corrupt activity displayed
by them, not just for fixing any part of their match but also for any other monetary
transaction, benefit or other penalty. Also according to the GPL Code of Conduct under
Article 2.1.8 where the facts of the alleged incident are not adequately or clearly covered by

23 Cricket Association of Bihar and another v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and another 2015 Indlaw
SC 44, (2015) 3 SCC 251, AIR 2015 SC 3194.
24 (19.08.1989 - MPHC)1990 (2) LLJ 416MP.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

21

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

any of the above offences, conduct that either: (a) is contrary to the spirit of the game; or (b)
bring the game into disrepute.
Hence the petitioner submits to the Honble Court that B.C.CGo was covering up the pie by
giving clean chits from the very beginning.

III. WHETHER HANK JEFFERSON AND LIAM JACKSON WERE FOUND

GUILTY OF MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT-FIXING?
The Counsel brings to the notice of the Honble Court that the petitioner that is, Altaf Aslam
declared that the two players Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson admitted that they were guilty
of match-fixing and spot-fixing but simultaneously made an accusation that they were the
vulnerable sentinels and innocent despite of being guilty.
Further referring to the facts of the case They were forced to engage into malpractices for
which they received huge sums of money. They stated that they have taken the stand not to
escape from the liability but to make the people and fans of cricket aware of this injustice
against them. Therefore, the facts clearly state that the two players were forced to indulge in
such crimes where force is power exerted against will or consent. 25
Hank and Liam later challenged their expulsion in the Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal
(ACUT) of IFC. In the case Ambalal Sarabhai and Ors. v.Phiris H. Antia26 , where a
member of a social club was expelled from the club and the expulsion challenged in the Court
like in the instant case Hank and Liam did.
The counsel submits the defence of the petitioner through a legal maxim, actus me invito
(factus) non est mens actus, which means that an act which is done by me against my will is
not my act and hence I am not responsible for it. In the instant case, Hank and Liam although
involved in match-fixing and spot- fixing, they were made to do it against their will and thus
it cannot be regarded or made responsible as an act done by them. Further, the law provides
that no individual should be held liable if he had no opportunity to choose an alternative to
breaking the law. In this case, also, Hank and Liam could not foresee any other alternative.
Hence the Counsel submits that Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were not guilty of match
fixing and spot fixing.
25 P Ramanatha Aiyars THE LAW LEXICON 3rd Edition 2012 LEXIS NEXIS pg.no 657.
26 AIR 1939 Bom. 35 1938 Indlaw MUM 34.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

22

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

III.1. WHETHER HANK JEFFERSON AND LIAM JACKSON WERE GUILTY OF

CHEATING
In the instant case, the Counsel draws the Honble Courts attention to the fact that it was
Hanks and Liams compulsion to do such crime. It is mentioned in the fact sheet that
Survival not only became their need but also a qualification because of which they can
achieve the ultimate goal i.e., to play for the country and going against the management will
be a foolish action. The word survival is indicative of the fact that the players, Hank and
Liam were threatened to carry out the said act and therefore the assertion of the respondent
that they were guilty of cheating is false and baseless. There was no mala fide intention on
their part, also there is a presence of actus reus.
According

to

the

Blacks

Law

Dictionary, duress

may

be

any

unlawful

threat or coercion used to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise
would not [or would]. Duress of the person may consist in violence to the person, or threats
of violence, or in imprisonment, whether actual or threatened. Criminal force as defined in
Sec. 350 of Godam Penal Code27 and duress was used on Hank and Liam which is why they
indulged in malpractices.
Further, the players also stated that GPL is a venture undertaken by celebrity politicians and
government officials thus huge money wealth and fame is involved, thus, at any point they
did not feel safe taking the help of public official and hence they came to Altaf Aslam.

27 Godam Pemal Code (GPC) is Pari Materia to Indian Penal Code, 1860.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

23

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

PRAYER
In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel on behalf of the
appellant humbly submits that the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The instant Writ Petition is maintainable;

2. B.C.CGo was covering up the pie by giving clean chit from the very beginning;
3. Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were not guilty of match-fixing and spot-fixing.

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience. For This
Act of Kindness, the Petitioner Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Counsel for the Petitioner

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

24