In a major relief to former Ranji Trophy player Santhosh Karunakaran, the Supreme Court has quashed the lifetime ban imposed on him by the Kerala Cricket Association (KCA) and directed that his case be reconsidered afresh.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta overturned the Kerala High Court’s 2021 order that had dismissed Karunakaran’s plea against the ban and upheld the KCA’s decision to blacklist him from all cricketing activities. The apex court ruled that the High Court had taken an “excessively harsh” view by rejecting Karunakaran’s writ petition and appeal on the ground that he had approached the court with “unclean hands” and had concealed material facts.
Karunakaran, who is also a member of the Thiruvananthapuram District Cricket Association, had first moved the ombudsman-cum-ethics officer in 2019 seeking implementation of a uniform model byelaw across district cricket associations in line with the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, as adopted by the BCCI. However, his application was dismissed in 2020 for failing to implead the district associations despite repeated instructions.
Following this, he challenged the ombudsman’s decision in the Kerala High Court, arguing that the proceedings were opaque and that he was unaware of the specific directive to include the DCAs. Both the single judge and division bench of the High Court rejected his petitions, paving the way for the KCA to impose a lifetime ban in August 2021 under Section 15(4)(s) of its byelaws.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court found merit in Karunakaran’s contention that the ombudsman’s proceedings lacked transparency. It observed that relevant documents and communications were not provided to him and that he and his counsel faced repeated technical disruptions during virtual hearings, impairing their ability to present their case.
The Court also noted that the ombudsman’s own remark—that impleading DCAs could cause unnecessary delay—may have reasonably led Karunakaran to believe that such impleadment was not mandatory. Moreover, the nature of his original application, seeking administrative reform rather than adversarial relief, did not necessitate a formal hearing for the DCAs, the Court pointed out.
Quashing the ban, the apex court concluded that Karunakaran’s case warranted a fresh and fair hearing and that the process leading to his blacklisting had been procedurally flawed.
