Kerala Cricket Association office-bearers can be tried under Prevention of Corruption Act, says HC

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court affirmed on Friday that the office-bearers of Kerala Cricket Association (KCA) fell within the ambit of ‘public servants,’ and hence can be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

It thus set aside a 2015 decision of a Single Bench of the High Court which had held that Vigilance cases cannot be preferred against office-bearers of the KCA.

Allowing writ appeals filed challenging the earlier HC order, a Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian held that the VACB’s Ernakulam unit can go ahead with the case registered against the KCA office-bearers.

A case was registered in 2013 based on a complaint by Joy Kaitharath, general secretary of State Human Rights Protection Centre, Thrissur, alleging corruption and irregularities in the KCA’s purchase of 23.95 acres of land for ₹26.62 crore to build a cricket stadium in Edakochi. As directed by the Vigilance Court, Thrissur, the VACB’s Ernakulam unit had submitted a quick verification report on the deal. Another complaint of a similar nature regarding the purchase of 10.50 acres of land in Idukki and the alleged filling of paddy fields was made by Kasaragod native V. Harish to the Vigilance Court, Kottayam.

Subsequently, KCA’s office-bearers challenged the Vigilance probe before the HC, by claiming that they did not fall within the ambit of ‘public servant’ and a Single Bench allowed their plea. The State government and the two complainants appealed against this before the HC.

Financial aid from State

The Division Bench of the High Court held on Friday that office bearers of the KCA — a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, affiliated to and functioning under the administrative control of the Board for Control of Cricket in India [BCCI], can be treated as “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The definition of “State” under Article 12 takes in not only the Central and State governments and the Union Territories, but also other ‘instrumentalities of the State’. Moreover, the KCA was receiving financial assistance from the State government.

The court then set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. Special Government Pleader A. Rajesh and Senior Government Pleader S. Rekha appeared before the HC for the VACB.