Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dr Subramanian Swamy vs Board Of Control For Cricket In India on 28 August, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No.645/2017
DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA Respondent(s)
Date : 28-08-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Petitioner(s)
Dr.Subramanian Swamy, Adv.
Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s)
Mr.Parag P. Tripathi, Sr.Adv. (A.C.)
Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr.Adv.
Mr.K.V.Vishwanathan, Sr.Adv.
Ms.Gauri Rasgotra, Adv.
Mr.Sumit Attri, Adv.
Mr.Adarsh Saxena, Adv.
Mr.Vikash Kumar Jha, Adv.
Ms.Vrinda Bhandari, Adv.
M/s Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Dr.Subramanian Swamy, petitioner in person, Mr.Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for COA and Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the CEO, BCCI.
The affidavit that has been filed by Mr.Vinod Rai, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Chairman, Committee of Administrators, inter alia, states Date: 2017.08.29 that:-
14:12:08 IST Reason:
“3. I say that the now ongoing tender process for award of IPL Media Rights for the period from 2018 to 2022 was discussed and deliberated upon in 2 detail in the meeting of the IPL Governing Council on May 20, 2017, wherein I was present along with two other members of the COA, namely, Mr.Vikram Limaye and Ms.Diana Edulji. During the said meeting, the now ongoing tender process was explained in detail by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”) as well as the BCCI legal team. All those present during the said meeting also considered the presentations made by (I) Rothschild (India) Pvt. Limited (a well-known advisory firm having experience in e-tendering processes) on e-auction/e-tendering processes; and (ii) Mr.John Loffhagen from IMG on the processes followed for tendering other major sports rights worldwide.
4. I say that during the aforesaid meeting, the possibility of making the tender by way of e-auction was specifically discussed. However, based on the detailed discussion and deliberation during the meeting and after having heard all concerned, the COA decided that the present ongoing tender process is better suited for awarding the IPL Media Rights.
5. I am of the considered view that the said tender process is fair, non-discriminatory and transparent. I am also convinced that the same process (as against e-auction) will also maxiize revenue for the BCCI. This is reinforced by the recent experience (after the COA assumed charge) of having tried and tested the tender process in relation to the India Team Sponsorship Rights and the IPL Title Sponsor Rights.
6. I state that the COA has discussed this issue with the legal advisors, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and this discussion has reinforced the view that the adoption of closed bid tender process for award of IPL Media Rights is in the best interest of BCCI. I further state that the recommendations of the Hon'ble Justice Lodha Committee require that the tender processes followed by the BCCI should be fair and transparent but do not stipulate that it should necessarily be an e-auction process.
In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to pass any order on the prayer for e-auction. However, we do not intend to close this matter as Mr.Subramanain Swamy is 3 thinking of filing some interlocutory application with regard to certain other aspects.
Needless to say as far as the prayer for e-auction is concerned that stands closed and only other aspects shall be adverted to.
List after six weeks.
(Ashok Raj Singh) (H.S.Parasher)
Court Master Assistant Registrar