The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a petition by former Indian Premier League (IPL) commissioner Lalit Modi hunting for an independent inquiry into the allegations of financial irregularities against him.
An apex court bench of Justice J.M. Panchal and Justice H.L. Gokhale said too 'a mere apprehension of bias cannot be a bottom for interference. There have got to exist a real danger of bias'.
Justice Gokhale said that Modi may have an apprehension but it was not impending to say from the material on record that 'he was facing a real danger of bias'.
The court assumed this 'though such domestic questions have with out a doubt to be fair, a member of a society cannot stretch the principle of fairness to the extent of demanding a tribunal consisting of outsiders, on the explanation that the society members are biased against him'.
Modi had challenged the composition of the Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI) disciplinary committee set up to probe allegations against him.
The three-member committee including Arun Jaitley, Jyotiraditya Scindia, and cricket administrator Chirayu Amin.
Modi had contended that the committee was not free according to bias as it included Amin, who along with the later cricketing board's president Shashank Manohar, had decided to own inquiry against him.
The judgment said Modi had not raised objection to the presence of Jaitley and Scindia. He had alone contested the appearance of Amin in the panel. The court believed the current apprehension of bias against 'Amin is not vastly founded'.
'Merely because all the members of a society have participated in the discussion concerning such allegation, the society can not be expected to appoint an outsider to hold the disciplinary proceeding,' the court said.
'That apart, merely a prima facie opinion is formed in such meetings. Merely because a member has participated in such a meeting, he cannot be accused of bias to disentitle him from being appointed on the disciplinary committee,' the court said.
'In this way, institutional bias can be said against every member of the governing council of IPL and the general person of the previous respondent (BCCI) which cannot be accepted,' the court said.
'We cannot suppose the the three-member committee are able to not afford the petitioner a fair hearing, or that it will not render unbiased findings,' the judges said.
'If the members or the managing committee of a society find a complaint of any misconduct on the part of any of its office bearers, surely the subject is possible to be taken up in the general body meeting of the society,' the judgment said, dismissing Modi's petition.
Read more here
An apex court bench of Justice J.M. Panchal and Justice H.L. Gokhale said too 'a mere apprehension of bias cannot be a bottom for interference. There have got to exist a real danger of bias'.
Justice Gokhale said that Modi may have an apprehension but it was not impending to say from the material on record that 'he was facing a real danger of bias'.
The court assumed this 'though such domestic questions have with out a doubt to be fair, a member of a society cannot stretch the principle of fairness to the extent of demanding a tribunal consisting of outsiders, on the explanation that the society members are biased against him'.
Modi had challenged the composition of the Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI) disciplinary committee set up to probe allegations against him.
The three-member committee including Arun Jaitley, Jyotiraditya Scindia, and cricket administrator Chirayu Amin.
Modi had contended that the committee was not free according to bias as it included Amin, who along with the later cricketing board's president Shashank Manohar, had decided to own inquiry against him.
The judgment said Modi had not raised objection to the presence of Jaitley and Scindia. He had alone contested the appearance of Amin in the panel. The court believed the current apprehension of bias against 'Amin is not vastly founded'.
'Merely because all the members of a society have participated in the discussion concerning such allegation, the society can not be expected to appoint an outsider to hold the disciplinary proceeding,' the court said.
'That apart, merely a prima facie opinion is formed in such meetings. Merely because a member has participated in such a meeting, he cannot be accused of bias to disentitle him from being appointed on the disciplinary committee,' the court said.
'In this way, institutional bias can be said against every member of the governing council of IPL and the general person of the previous respondent (BCCI) which cannot be accepted,' the court said.
'We cannot suppose the the three-member committee are able to not afford the petitioner a fair hearing, or that it will not render unbiased findings,' the judges said.
'If the members or the managing committee of a society find a complaint of any misconduct on the part of any of its office bearers, surely the subject is possible to be taken up in the general body meeting of the society,' the judgment said, dismissing Modi's petition.
Read more here
0 Comments
Thank you for your valuable comment.