-Memorandum-

-Petitioner-

TEAM CODE: P-PUM20

THE 2ND PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW NATIONAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON SPORTS LAW

11TH-13TH APRIL-2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

BRCI & Others Petitioner

Vs.

DB Channel & Another Respondent

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

[i]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(1) TABLE OF CONTENTS [ii]

(2) INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS [iii]

(3) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES [iv]

(4) STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION [vii]

(5) STATEMENT OF FACTS [viii]

(6) QUESTIONS OF LAW [xvi]

(7) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS [1]

(8) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED [3]

I. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN SUO MOTU UNDERTAKE AN

OVERHAUL OF THE BRCI AND CRICKET GOVERNANCE IN INDIA

(WHETHER BRCI CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE PUBLIC BODY)? [3]

II. WHETHER THE BRCI ABUSED ITS DOMINANT POSITION AND

ENGAGED IN ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO THE

CTLI AND S TV? [8]

III. WHETHER MANDATORY SHARING OF BROADCASTING SIGNALS

WITH DB CHANNEL IS JUSTIFIED?

[11]

IV. WHETHER THE REQUEST FOR E-AUCTION IN ILC BY MS. RANI DEV IS

JUSTIFIABLE? [15]

(9) PRAYER [xvii]

[ii]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.N ACRONYM ABBREVIATION

O
1. § SECTION
2. & AND
3. Ads. ADVERTISEMENT
4. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
5. Annex. ANNEXURE
6. Anr. ANOTHER
7. Art. ARTICLE
8. BCCI BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA
9. BTA BATSMEN TRAINING ACADEMY
10. CAG COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
11. CCI COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
12. Commr. COMMISSIONER
13. Consti. CONSTITUTION
14. Corpn. CORPORATION
15. CTLI CRICKET TOURNAMENT LEAGUE- INDIA
16. COMPAT COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
17. Govt. GOVERNMENT
18. HC HIGH COURT
19. Hon’ble HONOURABLE
20. HCN HOME CABLE NETWORK
21. i.e. THAT IS
22. IAA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
23. ICC INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL
24. ILC INDIA LEAGUE FOR CRICKET
25. M.P. MEMBER OF PARLIMENT
26. No. NUMBER
27. Ors. OTHERS
28. P. PAGE
29. Pvt, Ltd PRIVATE LIMITED
30. r/w READ WITH
31. SC SUPREME COURT
32. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
33. SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER
34. Supp. SUPPLEMENT
35. Eds. EDITION
36. @ ALIAS
37. ¶ PARAGRAPH

[iii]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

38. U/S UNDER SECTION

39. UOI UNION OF INDIA
40. V./Vs. VERSUS
41. Viz. NAMELY
42. W.r.t WITH RESPECT TO
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED
S.N PARTICULARS
O

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. PRASAR BHARATHI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF

INDIA) ACT, 1990
3. CONTRACTS ACT, 2008

4. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

5. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

6. COMPETITION ACT, 2002

7. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA RULES

8. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

9. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

10. MEDIA RIGHTS AGREEMENT

11. CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS ACT, 1995

BOOKS AND JOURNALS REFERRED

S.NO PARTICULARS
1. V.K. AGARWAL, Competition Act, 2002
1. D.D. BASU, Constitution of India, Lexis nexus Butterworths, Wadhwa, Nagpur
2. GAUR K.D, The Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing Co.Pvt.Ltd., 4 th
Ed., 2013
3. H.M. SEERVAI, Constitutional Law of India: a critical commentary (Delhi,
Universal Law Publishing Co. Ltd)
4. M P JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law, 1180, LexisNexis Butterworths

[iv]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2010.
5. PETER MURPHY, Evidence, Oxford University Press, 11th Edition.
6. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, The Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis Butterworths,
Wadhwa, Nagpur, 30th Ed. 2008(Y V Chandrachud J. &V R Manohar J.).
DICTIONARIES REFERRED

S.NO PARTICULARS
1. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th EDITION (1891-1991)

ONLINE SOURCES

S.NO PARTICULARS
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.scconline.com
3. www.heinonline.org
4. www.westlawindia.com
5. www.lexisnexis.com
6. www.ebscohost.com

CASE LAWS

1. 5 Whether It Is to Be Circulated To ... vs Union of India C/SCA/9655/2014

2. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid MujibSehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722: AIR 1981 SC 487
3. Ajay Jadeja vs Union of India And Ors. 95 (2002) DLT 14, 2002 (61) DRJ 639
4. Basheshar v. I.T. Commr., AIR 1959 SC 149 (158
5. Baustahlgewebe v. Commission (Case No. C-185/95 P) [(1998) ECR I-8417]
6. Bidi Supply Co. v. UOI, (1956) SC 267 (277).
7. Central Inland Water Corpn. v. Brojo, AIR 1986 SC 1371
8. Central Inland Water Corpn. v. Brojo, AIR 1986 SC 1371 (23,24,69)
9. Chander v. N.C.E.R.T., AIR 1992 SC 76 (5)
10. Commission in Neeraj Malhotra v. North Delhi Power Limited [Case No. 6/2009
decided on 11th May, 2011]
11. Commission of European Communities v. Tetra Laval BV (Case No. C-12/03)
[(2005) ECR I- 987]
12. Commission v. Ani Partecipsrzioni SpA (Case No. C-49/92 P) [(1999) ECR I-
4125]
13. D.T.C. v. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 (199)

[v]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

14. Debdas v. K.E. College, AIR 1964 Raj 6 (11).

15. Dr Subramanian Swamy vs Board of Control for Cricket Writ Petition(s)(Civil)
No.645/2017
16. Engineering v. Commission (Case T-67/00) [(2004) ECR II-2501]
17. Espn Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prasar Bharti & Anr. On 3 October, 2013
18. Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725
19. M.C. Mehta v. UOI, AIR 1987 SC 1086; L.I.C. v. Escorts, AIR 1986 SC 370
20. Manmohan v. Commr., AIR 1985 SC 364 (8
21. Paramatma v. Chief Justice, AIR 1964 Raj 13.
22. Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ors. v. Office of Communications [(2002) CAT 1],
23. Pradeep Kumar Biswasv. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) SCC 5
111, 124 (para 11)
24. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857
25. Ramamurthy v. Chief Commr., AIR 1963 SC 1464;
26. Ramana v. I.A.A.I., AIR 1979 SC 16
27. Ramana v. International Airports Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628;
28. Ratan Lal Soni vs The State of Rajasthan And Ors.
29. S. Anandraj vs. State Bank of India W.P.No.34376 of 2013
30. Sabhajeet v. UOI, AIR 1975 SC 1329.
31. Som Prakash v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 212
32. STAR SPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRASAR BHARATI & ORS
33. State of Punjab v. Raja, (1981) 3 SCC 66 (9-10).
34. Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 (1335,1359-60)
35. Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 (1342); Som Prakash v. UOI, AIR
1981 SC 212.
36. Ujjam bai v. State of U.P., (1963) 1 SCR 778 (969)
37. Umesh v. Singh, AIR 1967 Pat 3(9) FB.
38. Zee Telefilms Ltd. V. UOI, (2005) 4 SCC 649

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

[vi]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose
of the present case by virtue of Article 32 of The Constitution of India.

Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

[vii]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

1. CRICKET GOVERNANCE IN INDIA

Cricket is a popular sport in India, almost a religion many say. The Board for the Regulation

of Cricket in India (“BRCI”) is the governing body for cricket in India. It is registered under

the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in Mumbai. The BRCI conducts cricket tournaments at

the domestic and national levels and selects teams to represent the country in international

tournaments as well. It is a full member of the Global Council for Cricket (“GCC”), the body

responsible for the governance of cricket at the international level

2. ESTABLISHMENT OF 30 OVERS MATCH IN INDIA

In 2009, Ritwik Raj, the creative head of S TV channel, came up with the idea of hosting a 30

overs league format cricket tournament “the Cricket Tournament League – India

(CTLI)”. The total control from the organisation of the tournament to the selection of teams

was upto S TV channel. The CTLI kicked off in September, 2009, with a total of six teams.

Each team has an option of fielding three overseas players. It was a new format, and a respite

from the usual one-day Internationals that stretched to 50 overs a side, resulting in low

viewership.

3. TUSSEL BETWEEN BRCI AND S TV CHANNEL

 With the CTLI, fortune seemed to be smiling on S TV as well as on the game of cricket,

undergoing a revolution in its own right. Soon however, the BRCI started noticing S TV

ranking in the fortune and seemed like pre-occupying the cricket scene in the country

creating a threat to BRCI position in India.

 BRCI witnessing a threat to its position, Sidho Dutt, the Chairman of the BRCI in

order to nip the problem in bud initially informally approached players from the

domestic and national side who had signed to play CTLI to withdraw from the

[viii]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

game. The players who made good money refused to step back. Further BRCI

issued orders to the players to withdraw from CTLI or else they would lose their

other contracts with BRCI. The BRCI also “out-hired” stadia in various states so

that CTLI matches could not be organised there.

 By refusing the recognition to CTLI as a cricket league it also criticized some

former veteran players, including Faheem Khan (the captain of the world cup

winning side of 1991) for joining CTLI. Faheem Khan’s role with CTLI was seen

by the BRCI as a conflict of interest since he was also the chairman of the Batsmen

in Training Academy (“BTA”)

 The GCC, on its part gave a statement through its chief executive, Herschelle Smith,

that the GCC would not recognise the CTLI unless the BRCI were to recognize it.

On June 8, 2010, BRCI sacked Faheem Khan from its BTA position, however

on November 16, 2010, Faheem Khan informed the BRCI that he had resigned from

CTLI, Sidho Dutt refused to reinstate him to the BTA or involve him in any BRCI

activities in the future.

 On January 15, 2011, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) took suomotu

cognizance of the CTLI-BRCI tussle and directed its Director- General of

Investigation to do an initial investigation regarding the actions taken by the BRCI

against the players and to find whether BRCI involved in any anti-

competitive practices in this regard

 Based on the media reports on cancelling the contracts with the players and banning

them, it was concluded by the investigation team that BRCI has violated

competition law through its conduct.

 In the appeal filed by BRCI against the CCI’s decision before the Competition

Appellate Tribunal (“COMPAT”) also upheld the CCI’s decision. On February 9,

[ix]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

2011, S TV dragged the BRCI to the Bombay High Court over the issue of CTLI

accusing the BRCI of threatening and intimidating them and other state

organizations and engaging in anti- competitive attempts to stop the CTLI.

 On March 30, 2011, the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of S TV. In its ruling,

the Bombay High Court said that players should not suffer in the battle between

corporate giants and also issued notices to all corporate sponsors, the state cricket

associations and the BRCI against terminating valid contracts of players joining the

CTLI. The BRCI filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Bombay High

Court order.

4. LAUNCHING OF 20 OVER CRICKET LEAGUES

 At the course of time, players started shifting away from the CTLI in the hope of continuing

to play for their country and since the BRCI had extended an amnesty clause to them. With

the coast now clear, BRCI launched its own 20 over cricket league – the India League for

Cricket (“ILC”) on August 11, 2011, amidst much fanfare. The league was on the lines of

the Major League Baseball tournament in the US, a franchise model. It was managed by the

ILC Commissioner, Shaun Fernandez, a close aide of SidhoDutt. There were 10 teams in

all, and auctions were held for selecting players by the franchises.

 The 20 over format had already garnered much attention in the UK. It floated a tender,

seeking bids for the global broadcasting rights of the ILC, comprising the television, mobile

and internet rights to all ILC matches in April, 2011. The rights were won by Stats TV for a

period of 3 years (2011-2014).

5. STATS TV V. BRCI (The Board for Regulation of Cricket in India)

[x]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

 By everything going in right way, as years passed fissures started showing up between

BRCI and Stats TV. Shaun Fernandez, ILC Commissioner was sacked for his position

by internal investigation for involving in betting on ILC matches

 Further in 2013, BRCI sent notice terminating the deal with Stats TV accusing that they

repeatedly violated the integrity of telecast by prematurely cutting to breaks and

inserting commercials during a live match, replays and other on-field action.

 Stats TV approached the Bombay High Court against the BRCI’s decision, and the

Bombay High Court ruled in favour of Stats TV. The BRCI then filed an appeal before

the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court’s order.

6. CONFLICT WITH DOOR BHARATI CHANNEL (DB CHANNEL)

 Seeing the moolah, the ILC broadcasting rights were bringing in, Sidho Dutt was also

now worried about the bigger picture. Wickets TV, which holds the rights to broadcast all

BRCI-organized national-level and international matches from 2014-2019, had

approached him stating that as per law, private broadcasters are obliged to share live

broadcasting signals of sporting events of national importance with Door Bharati channel

(“DB channel”).

 While they had no problem sharing it as such, vide law, cable operators got access to the

broadcast of sporting events through two avenues: through the channels of Wickets TV,

or other sports broadcasters, by paying subscription fees, and via the DB channel, which

is free. This was leading to a loss in subscription and other advertising revenues.

[xi]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

7. BRCI & WICKETS TV VS. DOOR BHARATI CHANNEL (DB CHANNEL)

 In order to prevent the broadcasters from losing interest in the broadcasting rights,

BRCI along with Wickets TV, filed a case in the Bombay High Court, against DB

channel, the Union of India and Domestic Cable Private Ltd. (“DCPL”) to prevent this

practice.

 The Bombay High Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, holding that DB channel

cannot engage in free transmission of the signals of live sporting or cricketing events,

received from content right holders/ owners, to cable operators. The respondents have

filed an appeal against this decision before the Supreme Court.

 Meanwhile, the ILC broadcasting rights were also awarded by the BRCI to Wickets TV

for a period of 10 years (2014-2024), through a closed tender process.

8. SERIES OF ACCUSATIONS BY FAHEEM KHAN AND SHAUN FERNANDEZ

 Unceremonious treatment meted out to Faheem Khan and Shaun Fernandez by BRCI

urged them to act against BRCI. Shaun Fernandez gave out a statement in the media

highlighting that the ILC is being run by SidhoDutt like his family enterprise.

 Stating that his son owns a 43% stake in one of the franchises- Odisha Spears, he

himself owned 20% stake in New Fans Pvt. Ltd., the title sponsor of the Odisha Spears.

Fernandez also pointed out that Odisha Spears have been in the finals of the ILC ever

since its inception.

 Faheem Kahn alleged that the Uttarakhand Unicorns, owned by SidhoDutt’s brother-in-

law, Girjesh Mahajan, were constantly engaged in unsportsman-like behaviour and

openly violated the rules of the game, but the BRCI had failed to penalize the franchise

thus far, clearly showing favouritism.

 Faheem Kahn proved with two illustrations:

[xii]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

1. The captain of the Uttarakhand Unicorns, Jasjit Bajwa, was found to have been batting

with a squash ball in his glove to improve his grip. He had ended up scoring a century

in that match.

2. KadamShinde, an all-rounder from the Uttarakhand Unicorns was allegedly tampering

with the ball during a match against the Nagpur Hawks. The Nagpur Hawks had not

filed an official complaint against him. However, the video grab during the match

showed him having a mint in his mouth while shining the ball with his saliva.

9. SUPREME COURT’S MOVE

The Supreme Court took a suomotu cognizance of Shaun Fernandez’s and Faheem Khan’s

allegations and has undertaken to overhaul the governance of cricket in India to make it free

of corruption and introduce greater transparency in its affairs. As an interim measure, the

Supreme Court ordered the BRCI to have a nominee of the Accounts Auditor General

(“AAG”) on its board, to keep track of its finances and the way they were being spent. It also

seeked submissions from the BRCI regarding the allegations against JasjitBajwa and

KadamShinde since neither the BRCI nor the GCC had taken any action against them.

Further the Supreme Court decided to club all the pending matters (aforementioned),

involving the BRCI and the ILC, and to arrive at a reasoned decision in an expedient manner,

in the interest of justice of the parties involved as well as the sport in general.

10. M.P., RANI DEV WRIT PETITION

Meanwhile, a writ petition (claimed to be in public interest) was filed in the Supreme Court

by an MP, Rani Dev against the BRCI, questioning the format of the broadcasting rights

agreement of the ILC (“Broadcasting Agreement”). Ms. Dev seeks the Supreme Court to

[xiii]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

order that the BRCI hold auctions for the broadcasting rights of cricket matches through e-

auction to ensure transparency.

11. CONTENTIONS OF BRCI

While the BRCI with respect to the CTLI case, the Stats TV case, the DB channel case, and

the Rani Dev writ petition, contended that it is not amenable to regulation by the Supreme

Court as regards cricket governance (re. Shaun Fernandez’s and Faheem Khan’s allegations),

since it is a private body and does not even receive any funds from the government of India to

run and manage its affairs. It also cites apprehension regarding introducing the AAG nominee

on its board since the GCC might derecognize it for the same.

EVENTS

DATE EVENT
September, 2009 Cricket Tournament League- India (CTLI) started
June 8, 2010 Faheem Kahn sacked from Batsmen Training Academy(BTA),

Chairman position
November 16, Faheem Kahn informed about his resignation from CTLI

2010
January 15, 2011 Competition Commission of India’s suomotu action on CTLI-BRCI

tussle
February 9, 2011 S TV dragged BRCI to Bombay High Court for CTLI
March 30, 2011 Bombay High Court ruled in favour of S TV
April, 2011 Broadcasting rights tender for ILC was floated
August 11, 2011 Indian League for Cricket(ILC), was launched
2013 BRCI sent notice to Stats TV regarding termination of deal
DESIGNATION OF PERSONS

S.NO NAME DESIGNATION

.
1. Ritwik Raj Creative head of S TV
2. Sidho Dutt Chairman of BRCI

[xiv]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

3. Faheem Khan Veteran player

4. Herschelle Smith Chief Executive of GCC
5. Shaun Fernandez Commissioner of ILC
6. Girjesh Mahajan Uttarakhand Unicorns owner, Sidho Dutt’s brother-in-law
7. Jasjit Bajwa Batsman- Uttarakhand Unicorns
8. Kadam Shinde All-rounder, Uttarakhand Unicorns
9. Rani Dev Member of Parliament

QUESTIONS OF LAW

I. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN SUO MOTU UNDERTAKE AN

OVERHAUL OF THE BRCI AND CRICKET GOVERNANCE IN INDIA

(WHETHER BRCI CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE PUBLIC BODY)?

II.

III. WHETHER THE BRCI ABUSED ITS DOMINANT POSITION AND

ENGAGED IN ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO

THE CTLI AND S TV?

IV.

[xv]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

V. WHETHER MANDATORY SHARING OF BROADCASTING SIGNALS

WITH DB CHANNEL IS JUSTIFIED?

VI.

VII. WHETHER THE REQUEST FOR E-AUCTION IN ILC BY MS. RANI

DEV IS JUSTIFIABLE?

[xvi]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT SUO MOTU UNDERTAKE AN

OVERHAUL OF THE BRCI AND CRICKET GOVERNANCE IN INDIA

The Counsel on behalf of BRCI & Others (hereinafter Petitioner) most humbly

submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that The Supreme court cannot suo motu

undertake an overhaul of the BRCI since it comes under the Private body under

Article 12 of The Indian Constitution. Authorities is defined as ‘authority’ means a

‘person’ or a ‘body’ exercising power or having a legal right to command and be

obeyed. Under this purview of article 12 BRCI is a Private body. Hence the counsel

pleads that the Supreme Court cannot suo motu undertake an overhaul of the BRCI

and cricket governance in India.

II. BRCI DIDN’T ABUSE ITS DOMINANT POSITION AND DIDN’T ENGAGE

IN ANY ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO THE CTLI

AND S TV

The counsel on behalf of the BRCI & Others ( hereinafter Petitioner) most humbly

submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the BRCI didn’t abuse its dominant

position and didn’t engage in any anti-competitive practices with respect to the CTLI

and S TV because the cricket governing body BRCI cannot be alleged abuse of

dominance, as the regulatory relied on “legally unsustainable” information from

media reports for nailing the board and BRCI is a ‘ not-for profit’ society for the

promotion of sport of cricket and its activities is outside the purview of the

Competition Act.

[1]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

III. MANDATORY SHARING OF BROADCASTING SIGNALS WITH DB

CHANNEL IS NOT JUSTIFIED

The Counsel on behalf of BRCI & Others (hereinafter Petitioner) most humbly

submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the mandatory sharing of

broadcasting signals with DB channel is not justified under The Sports Broadcasting

Signals (Mandatory Sharing Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007. Section 3 of this act is found

to be in violation of Fundamental Right of a Private body. Hence the counsel humbly

pleads that Mandatory Sharing of Broadcasting signals with DB channel is not

justified under The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing Prasar Bharati)

Act, 2007.

IV. THE REQUEST FOR E-AUCTION IN ILC BY MS. RANI DEV IN SUPREME

COURT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE.

The Counsel on behalf of BRCI & Others (hereinafter Petitioner) most humbly

submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the request for e-auction by Ms. Rani

Dev is not justifiable because the interference of the government authority upon the

rules and regulations of the private body is not attributable by law and the concept of

e-auction as requested by Ms. Rani Dev is subjected to various pitfalls.

[2]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT SUO MOTU UNDERTAKE AN

OVERHAUL OF THE BRCI AND THE CRICKET GOVERNANCE IN INDIA

The Counsel on behalf of BRCI & Others (hereinafter Petitioner) most humbly submits

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that The Supreme court cannot suo motu undertake an

overhaul of the BRCI since it comes under the Private body under Article 12 of The Indian

Constitution. Authorities is defined as ‘authority’ means a ‘person’ or a ‘body’ exercising

power or having a legal right to command and be obeyed. Under this purview of article 12

BRCI is a Private body. Hence the counsel pleads that the Supreme Court cannot suo motu

undertake an overhaul of the BRCI and cricket governance in India.

A. BRCI IS NOT A PUBLIC BODY

As per Article 12 of Indian Constitution “Definition In this part, unless the context otherwise

requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government

and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory

of India or under the control of the Government of India”

The definition of ‘State’ in Art. 12 will include not only the Executive and Legislative 1

organs of the Union and the States, but also local bodies (such as municipal authorities) 2 as

well as ‘other authorities’, which include the ‘instrumentalities and agencies’ of the State, or

1
Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
2
Basheshar v. I.T. Commr., AIR 1959 SC 149 (158).

[3]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

bodies or institutions which discharge public functions of a governmental character 3, or in

other words, it comprises all acts which can be brought within the fold of ‘State action’4.

A.1 BRCI IS NOT A STATE

Initially, the definition of State was treated as exhaustive and confined to the authorities or

those which could be read ejusdem generis with the authorities mention in the definition of

Art. 12 itself. The next stage was reached when the definition of “State” came to be under

stood with reference to remedies available against it. Thus a statutory corporation, with

regulations framed by such corporation pursuant to statutory powers was considered a State,

and public duty was limited to those which were created by statute. 5 The picture that

ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia6are not a rigid set of principles

so that, if a body falls within any one of them, it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a

State within the meaning of Art. 12. The question in each case would be – whether in the

light of cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and

administratively dominated by or under the control of the govt. Such control must be

particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found, then the body is a

State within Art. 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under

statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State. 7Hence, when the body is

financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the

government and such control is particular to the body and is pervasive, then it will be a

‘State’ within Art. 12. If the control is merely regulatory, it will not be a ‘State.’ Here the

BRCI is not financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control

of the govt. So BRCI is not a state under article 12.

3
Ramana v. I.A.A.I., AIR 1979 SC 162
4
Som Prakash v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 212
5
Pradeep Kumar Biswasv. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) SCC 5 111, 124 (para 11)
6
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid MujibSehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722: AIR 1981 SC 487
7
Ibid.

[4]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

B. BRCI DOES NOT COMES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF OTHER

AUTHORITIES IN ARTICLE 12

There is no common feature running through the various bodies,8 which have been held to be

covered by the expression ‘other authorities’.

The expression refers to –

1. Instrumentalities or agencies9of the Government and Government Departments10.But

every instrumentality of Government is not necessarily a ‘Governmental

Department’.11

2. Every type of public authority, exercising statutory powers,12 whether such powers are

governmental or quasi-governmental or non-governmental, and whether such

authority is under the control of government or not, and even though it may be

engaged in carrying out some activities in nature of trade or commerce,13 e.g., A

board,14 a University,15 the Chief Justice of High Court,16 having the power to issue

rules, bye-laws or regulations having the force of law or the power to make statutory

appointments; a public corporation,17 a government undertaking.18

8
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857
9
Som Prakash v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 212.
10
Bidi Supply Co. v. UOI, (1956) SC 267 (277).
11
 State of Punjab v. Raja, (1981) 3 SCC 66 (9-10).
12
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857.
13
ibid
14
ibid
15
Umesh v. Singh, AIR 1967 Pat 3(9) FB.
16
Paramatma v. Chief Justice, AIR 1964 Raj 13.
17
D.T.C. v. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 (199)
18
Som Prakash v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 212.

[5]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

 An authority set under a statute19for the purpose of administering a law enacted by

the legislature, including those vested with a duty to make decisions in order to

implement them20.

But a non-statutory body, exercising no statutory powers21is not a ‘State’, e.g.,

1. A company.22

2. Private bodies having no statutory power,23 not being supported by a state act.24

 A society registered under the Societies Registration Act,25 unless it can be held

that the society was an instrumentality or agency of the State,26 or exercises

statutory powers to make rules, bye-laws or regulations having statutory force.

1. An autonomous body, which is controlled by the Government only as to the proper

utilization of its financial grant.27

Even a private body or a corporation28or an aided private school29may however, be included

within the definition of ‘State’ if it acts as an ‘agency’ of the Government30. In determining

whether a corporation or a Government company or a private body is an instrumentality or an

agency of the state, the following tests would be applicable:31

19
Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 (1342); Sabhajeet v. UOI, AIR 1975 SC 1329.
20
Ujjam bai v. State of U.P., (1963) 1 SCR 778 (969)
21
Debdas v. K.E. College, AIR 1964 Raj 6 (11).
22
S.K. Mukherjee v. Chemicals, AIR 1962 Cal 10 (12); M.C. Mehta v. UOI, AIR 1987 SC 1086
23
Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC (11)
24
Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
25
Tiwari v. Jawala, AIR 1981 SC 122
26
Som Prakash v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 212.
27
Chander v. N.C.E.R.T., AIR 1992 SC 76 (5)
28
Central Inland Water Corpn. v. Brojo, AIR 1986 SC 1371 (23,24,69)
29
Manmohan v. Commr., AIR 1985 SC 364 (8)
30
Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 (1335,1359-60)
31
Ramana v. International Airports Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid, AIR 1981 SC 487;
Central Inland Water Corpn. v. Brojo, AIR 1986 SC 1371

[6]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

1. Whether the entire share capital is held by the government.

2. Whether the corporation enjoys the monopoly status conferred by the State.

 Whether the functions of the corporation are the governmental functions or

functions closely related thereto which are basically the responsibilities of a

Welfare State.

1. If the department of the Government has been transferred to the corporation.

2. Volume of financial assistance received from the State.

3. The quantum of State control.

 Whether any statutory duties are imposed upon the corporation.

 The character of the corporation may change with respect to its different

functions.32

In Zee Telefilms case33, Supreme Court has further held that since socio-economic policy of

government has changed and the State is distancing itself from commercial activities and

concentrating on governance rather on business, the scope of extending the scope of ‘other

authorities’ is no longer necessary.

Also, an authority located outside the territory of India may still come under the definition of

‘State’ under Art. 12 if it is under the control of the Government of India.34

Once a body is characterized an ‘authority’ under Art. 12, several significant incidents

invariably follow:35

32
M.C. Mehta v. UOI, AIR 1987 SC 1086; L.I.C. v. Escorts, AIR 1986 SC 370
33
Zee Telefilms Ltd. V. UOI, (2005) 4 SCC 649
34
Ramamurthy v. Chief Commr., AIR 1963 SC 1464; Dr. Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VI, p.
607.
35
Jain M.P., THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Vol. I, 5th Ed., p 982

[7]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

1. The body becomes subject to the discipline of fundamental rights, which means that

its actions and decisions can be challenged with reference to fundamental rights.

2. The body also becomes subject to the discipline of Administrative Law.

The body becomes subject to the writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art. 32 and that of

High Court under Art. 226. None of the following criteria were applicable to BRCI. Hence

the counsel humbly pleads that the supreme court cannot suo motu can undertake an overhaul

of the BRCI and the governance of cricket in India since it is the private body and not the

public or other authorities.

II. BRCI DIDN’T ABUSE ITS DOMINANT POSITION AND DIDN’T

ENGAGE IN ANY ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES WITH

RESPECT TO THE CTLI AND S TV

The counsel on behalf of the BRCI & Others ( hereinafter Petitioner) most humbly submits

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the BRCI didn’t abuse its dominant position and

didn’t engage in any anti-competitive practices with respect to the CTLI and S TV because

the cricket governing body BRCI cannot be alleged abuse of dominance, as the regulatory

relied on “legally unsustainable” information from media reports for nailing the board and

BRCI is a ‘ not-for profit’ society for the promotion of sport of cricket and its activities is

outside the purview of the Competition Act.

A. BRCI WASN’T GUILTY OF ENGAGING IN ANTI-COMPETITIVE

PRACTICES

The findings recorded by the commission on the issue of abuse of dominance is legally

unsustainable and is liable to be set-aside because the information obtained from the media

reports and similar other materials do not have any evidentiary value. A report in a newspaper

[8]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

is only hearsay evidence. Newspaper/ Social Media is not one of the documents referred to in

Section 78(2)36 of the Evidence Act by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The

presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper

report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. A statement of fact contained

in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the

maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported.37

In Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Supreme Court held that

the newspaper is not admissible in evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents

referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act by which an allegation of fact can be proved.

B. BCCI IS NOT AN ENTERPRISE

BRCI is a not-for-profit society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,

1975, established to promote the sport of cricket in India. BRCI is not engaged in any

commercial activity with the objective of earning profits. Thus, BRCI cannot be equated with

business organisations and is not an ‘enterprise’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the

Competition Act. Accordingly, Section 4 cannot be applicable upon BRCI. In support of such

contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and Others v.

Cricket Association of Bengal and Others38

C. DOMINANT POSITION

36
Section 78(2) in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The proceedings of the Legislatures, — by the journals of
those bodies respectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies purporting to be printed 3[by order of
the Government concerned]; 6[by order of the Government concerned];"

37
Ratan Lal Soni vs The State of Rajasthan And Ors.

38
[1995 (2) SCC 161]

[9]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

The market share, size, resources and economic power of BRCI, dependence of consumers

and high entry barriers to conclude that BRCI enjoys dominant position in the relevant

market. Since BRCI is a not-for-profit organisation and its profits are being used for

development of cricket, its economic strength cannot be considered as a factor to conclude its

dominance. There are high entry barriers and BRCI has 100% market share on the

presumption that no other person can organize professional domestic cricket event in India.

As regard the finding that consumers are absolutely dependent on BRCI. The BRCI Rules,

restricting participation of its players and match officials in disapproved cricket, even though

such rules are essential to protect the interest of the sport. The fact that BRCI derives its

authority purely from GCC Rules and as a result of the pyramid structure of the sport

industry. Such authority cannot be considered as dominance in view of Section 19(4)(g) 39 of

the Act.

D. NON-ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION

The supplementary order dated 24th October, 2013 of the Commission in Case No. 51/2011

in HNG Float Glass Ltd. v. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. was relied upon to assert that the

finding of abuse of dominant position would require establishment of actual exclusionary

conduct. Lastly, the judgments or orders of General Court, European Union in AstraZeneca

AB v. European Commission (Case T-321/05) [(2010) ECR II-2805], European Court of

Justice in Commission of European Communities v. Tetra Laval BV (Case No. C-12/03)

[(2005) ECR I- 987], Commission in Neeraj Malhotra v. North Delhi Power Limited [Case

39
Section 19(4)(g)- monopoly or dominant position whether acquired as a result of any statute or by virtue of
being a Government company or a public sector undertaking or otherwise;

[10]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

No. 6/2009 decided on 11th May, 2011], UK Competition Appeals Tribunal in Naap

Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ors. v. Office of Communications [(2002) CAT 1],

Baustahlgewebe v. Commission (Case No. C-185/95 P) [(1998) ECR I-8417], JFE

Engineering v. Commission (Case T-67/00) [(2004) ECR II-2501] and Commission v. Ani

Partecipsrzioni SpA (Case No. C-49/92 P) [(1999) ECR I-4125] were relied upon to assert

that a finding of abuse of dominant position should be based on clear and cogent evidence.40

III. MANDATORY SHARING OF BROADCASTING SIGNALS WITH DB

CHANNEL IS NOT JUSTIFIED

The Counsel on behalf of BRCI & Others (hereinafter Petitioner) most humbly submits

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the mandatory sharing of broadcasting signals with

DB channel is not justified under The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing

Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007. Section 3 of this act is found to be in violation of Fundamental

Right of a Private body. Hence the counsel humbly pleads that Mandatory Sharing of

Broadcasting signals with DB channel is not justified under The Sports Broadcasting Signals

(Mandatory Sharing Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007.

A. SECTION 3 OF THE SPORTS ACT IS THE VIOLATION OF

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

40
http://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/61%20of%202010.pdf

[11]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

Rule 5 of the Sports Rules is violative of Section 341 of the Sports Act and ultra-vires Article

14 of the Constitution of India.

Rule 5: “Responsibility of a television or radio channel broadcasting the sporting event. If

the television or radio broadcasting service provider is different from the content rights

owner or holder, it shall be its duty to ensure that adequate arrangements for compliance

with the provisions of the Act and the rules are made, at the time of acquisition of the rights

from the content rights owner or holder”.42

This rule was in violation with section 3 of the act and this is also in par with the violation of

article 14 which is a fundamental right. The expression ‘its advertisements’ in Section 3 of

the Sports Act referred to the advertisements of the broadcaster in India and not the

advertisements of the content rights owner, i.e., the event organizer. 43 Any removal or any

insertion in the broadcast signal received from the event organizer would be a breach of the

41
§ 3 - (1) No content rights owner or holder and no television or radio broadcasting service provider shall
carry a live television broadcast on any cable or Direct-to-Home network or radio commentary broadcast in
India of sporting events of national importance, unless it simultaneously shares the live broadcasting signal,
without its advertisements, with the Prasar Bharati to enable them to re-transmit the same on its terrestrial
networks and Direct-to-Home networks in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be specified.
(2) The terms and conditions under sub-section (1) shall also provide that the advertisement revenue sharing
between the content rights owner or holder and the Prasar Bharati shall be in the ratio of not less than 75:25 in
case of television coverage and 50:50 in case of radio coverage.
(3) The Central Government may specify a percentage of the revenue received by the Prasar Bharati under sub-
section (2), which shall be utilised by the Prasar Bharati for broadcasting other sporting events.
4. Penalties.–The Central Government may specify penalties to be imposed, including suspension or revocation
of licence, permission or registration, for violation of various terms and conditions as may be specified under
section 3, subject to the condition that amount of a pecuniary penalty shall not exceed one crore rupees:
Provided that no penalty shall be imposed without giving a reasonable opportunity to the service provider:
Provided further that no act or omission on the part of any person after the 11th November, 2005 and before the
date of promulgation of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Ordinance,
2007 (Ord. 4 of 2007), shall be subjected to penalties.
42
The Sports Broadcast Signals (Mandatory Sharing with PrasarBharati) Rules, 2007
43
http://www.nishithdesai.com/information/research-and-articles/nda-hotline/nda-hotline-single-
view/newsid/2084/html/1.html?no_cache=1

[12]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

Petitioner’s contractual obligations with the event organizer. In accordance with the decision

of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. & Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma & Ors. 44(where the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was pronounced to be an expropriatory act and therefore, was to

be interpreted in a manner least burdensome to the person whose land was expropriated), the

Sports Act was similarly argued to be an expropriatory act since it compulsorily extracted a

revenue from the broadcaster and therefore, it was urged that it be interpreted in a fashion

least burdensome to the broadcaster.

Rule 5 is violative of Section 3, for the reason the Rule in question simply obliges the content

right owner or the holder or a broadcast service provider to ensure compliance with the

provisions of the Act. Now, even if Rule 5 was not to exist, it would be the duty of everybody

concerned with television broadcast to comply with the provisions of the Sports Broadcast

Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharti) Act, 2007. Thus, the Rule makes explicit, by

putting it in writing, what even otherwise would exist in law.45

B. INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 3 OF THE SPORTS ACT

Section 3(1) of the act includes the contents were to be shared 'without its advertisements'

which meant no advertisements of the Broadcaster and, therefore, this expression did not

include advertisements inserted in the feed by the event organizer. 'On-Screen Credits' put in

by the event organizers themselves cannot be treated as advertisements at all. As these

features were the integral part of the feeds that the appellant was receiving from the

organizers for the purpose of broadcasting. These credits were logos of the event sponsors

which were appearing on the screen as per the agreement between the event sponsors and the

event organizers. the word 'its' occurring in the expression 'without its advertisements', he

44
(1966) 3 SCR 557
45
Espn Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs Prasar Bharti & Anr. on 3 October, 2013

[13]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

submitted that Section 3 mentions three categories, namely, (a) content right owner; (b)

holder; and (c) service provider.

The text of Section 2(b) which defines 'broadcasting' along with Section 2(d) and Section

2(h) which provide definitions of 'broadcasting networks service' 'content' as well as Rules

2(b), 3 and 5.46

2(b) “broadcasting” means assembling and programming any form of communication

content, like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds, and either placing it in the

electronic form on electro-magnetic waves on specific frequencies and transmitting it

through space or cables to make it continuously available on the carrier waves, or

continuously streaming it in digital data form on the computer networks, so as to be

accessible to single or multiple users through receiving devices either directly or indirectly;

and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions;

(d) “broadcasting networks service” means a service, which provides a network of

infrastructure of cables or transmitting devices for carrying broadcasting content in

electronic form on specified frequencies by means of guided or unguided electro-magnetic

waves to multiple users, and includes the management and operation of any of the following:

(i) Teleport/Hub/Earth Station,

(ii) Direct-to-Home (DTH) Broadcasting Network,

(iii) Multisystem Cable Television Network,

(iv) Local Cable Television Network,

(v) Satellite Radio Broadcasting Network,

(vi) any other network service as may be prescribed by the Central Government;

46
STAR SPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRASAR BHARATI & ORS.

[14]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

(h) “content” means any sound, text, data, picture (still or moving), other audio-

visual representation, signal or intelligence of any nature or any combination thereof

which is capable of being created, processed, stored, retrieved or communicated

electronically;

Hence the counsel humbly submits before the honourable court that the mandatory sharing of

broadcasting signals with DB Channel is not justified.

IV. THE REQUEST FOR E-AUCTION IN ILC BY MS. RANI DEV IN SUPREME

COURT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE.

The Counsel on behalf of BRCI & Others (hereinafter Petitioner) most humbly submits

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the request for e-auction by Ms. Rani Dev is not

justifiable because the interference of the government authority upon the rules and

regulations of the private body is not attributable by law and the concept of e-auction as

requested by Ms. Rani Dev is subjected to various pitfalls.

A. WRIT PETITION OVER A PRIVATE BODY

In the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case Zee Telefilms Ltd Vs. Union of India 47 , it

was held that BCCI does not fall under the meaning of “state” under Article 12 48 of the

47
Zee Telefilms Ltd Vs. Union of India, (2005 4 SCC 649)
48
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” includes the Government and Parliament of
India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the
territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

[15]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

Constitution of India, where violation of Part III of the Constitution of India is expressly

exercised by the people. To exercise Article 32 of the Constitution the pre-requisite is that,

the body should a ‘State’, where further to make clear in the case Ajay Hasia and Others v.

Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others49, It was held by the court of law that where the entire

share capital and funds are regulated by the Government then the corporation can be

considered as an agency of the Government, but in the case of BCCI this private body does

not receive any such funds from the Government of India. Therefore, being a private body a

filing a writ petition under Article 32 50of the Constitution over it is not maintainable with

respect to the Constitutional provisions.

B. INTERVENTION OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IN THE

ACTIONS OF PRIVATE BODY.

In the judgement of the case Ajay Jadeja vs Union of India And Ors. 51 It was upheld that the

BCCI is an autonomous body not funded by the Government of India and the Government

has no control over BCCI's affairs and also made it clear that BCCI has its own constitution

and functions within its own rules and regulations. Thus, interfering into the rules and
49
Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others (1981)1 SCC 722.

50
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.
51
Ajay Jadeja vs Union of India And Ors. 95 (2002) DLT 14, 2002 (61) DRJ 639

[16]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

regulations of the private body by Government authorities is not amenable, with respect to

the request of e-auction the petition cannot be encouraged as it interferes into the regulations

of the BRCI.

C. PITFALLS IN THE CONCEPT OF E-AUCTION MAKING ITS

REQUEST UNJUSTIFIED

In the case, Whether It Is to Be Circulated To ... vs Union of India52 it stated the various

pitfalls regarding the concept of e-auction where it was submitted that in large number of

cases, the intended bidders may not be subjected to breakdown free internet facilities. If at the

time of auction, the internet coverage is disrupted, the intending bidder would be prevented

from submitting his higher offer. The entire procedure would be conducted in an opaque

manner completely lacking in transparency. The person whose property is being put to sale

would have no access to the bids which might have taken place. Further in the case S.

Anandraj vs. State Bank of India 53it was held that a public auction is a better method for

obtaining the best price possible, in respect of the secured assets, as compared to that of sale

of the assets by way of e-auction. With respect to the recent petition filed in the Supreme

Court regarding e-auction in BCCI in the petition of Dr Subramanian Swamy vs Board of

Control for Cricket

the reply given by the BCCI is that, the fact of e-auction takes away the secrecy which comes

with a sealed bid. The revelation of bidding amounts in e- auction will provide the bidders a

fair idea about the amount which would be enough to seal the rights which affects the funds

of the body by removing the possibility of getting a higher bid for the Board. These

apprehensions were far acceptable which eventually unjustified the request for e-auctions in

providing broadcasting rights54

52
5 Whether It Is to Be Circulated To ... vs Union of India C/SCA/9655/2014

53
S. Anandraj vs. State Bank of India W.P.No.34376 of 2013
54
Dr Subramanian Swamy vs Board of Control for Cricket Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No.645/20

[17]
 -Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THE PRTITIONER HUMBLY PLEADS BEFORE THE

HON’BLE COURT TO:

1. TO DECLARE THAT THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT SUO MOTU

UNDERTAKE THE OVERHAUL OF BRCI AND CRICKET GOVERNANCE

IN INDIASET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT

2.

3. TO DECLARE THE BRCI DIDN’T ABUSED ITS DOMINANT POSITION

AND HAVE NOT ENGAGED IN ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES WITH

RESPECT TO THE CTLI AND S TV

4. TO DECLARE THAT THE REQUEST FOR E-AUCTION IN ILC BY MS.

RANI DEV IS NOT JUSTIFIABLETO CONVICT MIDHUN DORJEE AND

RAMAN RAI FOR THE DEATH OF JAI TYAGI

5. TO IMPOSE CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY ON FINTEC SOLUTIONS PVT, LTD.

6.

ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST

 OF EQUITY,  JUSTICE AND GOOD  CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERROSECUTION FACTION

SHALL BEDUTY BOUND FOREVER.

[xvii]
-Memorandum-
-Petitioner-

SD/-

(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERROSECUTION)

[xviii]