A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the special leave petition (SLP) filed by Karunakaran against the 2021 rulings of the Kerala High Court, which had dismissed his writ petition and subsequent appeal.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
The cricketer had originally approached the Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer in 2019, requesting implementation of model byelaws in all District Cricket Associations (DCAs) of Kerala as recommended by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee and adopted by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).<\/p>\r\n\r\n
The Ombudsman rejected Karunakaran\u2019s plea on October 3, 2020, citing his failure to implead the DCAs as parties in the case, despite repeated directions. Karunakaran moved the Kerala High Court challenging this decision, arguing that the Ombudsman\u2019s proceedings were absolutely non-transparent and he was never informed about those specific directions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Both the single judge as well as the division bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed Karunakaran\u2019s petitions, holding that he had approached the court with \u201cunclean hands\u201d and purportedly concealed material facts.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Following the High Court's dismissal of Karunakaran\u2019s pleas, the KCA issued a show-cause notice under its bye-laws.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
In August 2021, the KCA imposed a lifetime ban, blacklisting Karunakaran from all its activities and stripping him of his rights and privileges as a registered member of the Thiruvananthapuram DCA.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
In its judgment, the Supreme Court agreed with Karunakaran\u2019s contention that the proceedings before the Ombudsman lacked transparency and that he was not provided with the relevant records.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Notably, Karunakaran had written to the Ombudsman requesting access to a copy of all records of the proceedings in the original application, but his request was denied on the grounds that the Ombudsman is a \"persona designata\" and not a court of record.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Further, the apex court took note of the fact that Karunakaran and his counsel faced repeated difficulties in addressing the Ombudsman, as virtual hearings were \u201cfrequently interrupted without any justification\u201d.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
It termed the Kerala High Court\u2019s dismissal of Karunakaran\u2019s pleas as \u201charsh\u201d, noting that he was under no obligation to implead the DCAs in his original application before the Ombudsman.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cOtherwise, also, the only prayer of the appellant in the original application was to frame uniform Bye-laws in sync with the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. Thus, the application filed by the appellant was not in the form of any adversarial litigation requiring the mandatory opportunity of hearing to the DCAs,\u201d the top court said.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
It termed the Kerala High Court\u2019s dismissal of Karunakaran\u2019s pleas as \u201charsh\u201d, noting that he was under no obligation to implead the DCAs in his original application before the Ombudsman.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cThe proceedings of the Original Application No. 10 of 2019 filed by the appellant before the Ombudsman shall stand revived. The concerned parties shall be provided an opportunity of hearing, and the original application shall be decided afresh by the Ombudsman by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months,\u201d the Justice Nath-led Bench ordered.<\/p>\r\n\r\n