Plethora of evidence against Jadeja in match fixing: BCCI

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) today justified the five-year ban on cricketer Ajay Jadeja in the Delhi High Court on charges of match fixing, and said "there were plethora of evidence against him".

"There were plethora of evidence against him, some of them oral, on the basis of which action was taken," counsel for the BCCI K K Venugopal told Justice Mukul Mudgal while replying to Jadeja's civil writ petition challenging the imposition of ban on him.

Questioning the very maintainability of the petition, the BCCI counsel said no remedy through civil writ under Article 226 lies against the Board as it was not a statutory body. Nor is it performing any function of the state, he said.

"BCCI is an independent body constituted under the Societies Registration Act and if the petitioner (Jadeja) feels aggrieved for any of its action, or breach of contract, he can file a suit for damage as no case for violation of fundamental rights under Article 226 of the Constitution can be made out against the Board," he said.

Venugopal said the High Court while hearing a civil writ by former cricketer Mohinder Amarnath a few years ago against the BCCI, had ruled that the Board is not a statutory body. Amarnath had later withdrawn his petition, he said.

Jadeja's counsel P P Malhotra alleged that the BCCI's action against his client was "malafide" as it was based on the CBI report, which neither recommended any action against the players nor had specified any offence against them.

"The CBI report itself stated that no offence is made out against the players under IPC, Malhotra said.

The BCCI counsel said, the Government in an affidavit filed before a Bench headed by Chief Justice, hearing a PIL seeking probe into the the functioning of BCCI, had also said that the Board was not a statutory body.

As the court asked what is the status of Indian team when it represents the country abroad, Venugopal said "selection of players is made by the BCCI independently on the basis of merit and Government has no say in it."

BCCI as a registered society, has its affiliation to the International Cricket Council (ICC). Every player selected by the Board has to sign a contract with it.

"Even if a player feels that the contract is breached by such a kind of action by the Board, the only remedy for him will be to claim damages through a civil suit," he said.

Jadeja's counsel said that BCCI investigator, K Madhavan had drawn his conclusion about his client's "involvement" in match fixing only on the basis of the CBI report, which had not specified any charge against the players.

Madhavan had not afforded any opportunity to Jadeja to cross examine the witnesses, nor was he supplied any document. Such an action on his part was against natural justice as well as the Commission of Inquiry Act, he said.

"CBI had relied upon the telephone bills of some persons whom Jadeja did not even know. If he had a conversation with an anonymous caller who had contacted him, how can he be held responsible. Is a conversation on phone when someone contacts you an offence," Jadeja's counsel asked.

The propriety demanded that CBI should have confronted Jadeja with the documents including the telephone bills while probing the matter, he said.