S Sreesanth moves Supreme Court to appeal against life ban by BCCI
The Kerala High Court had earlier in October ordered him to stay away from all the cricket activities conducted by the BCCI
Published - Feb 1, 2018 4:45 pm | Updated - Feb 1, 2018 8:13 pm
S Sreesanth was acquitted of all fixing charges by a special court in Delhi in 2016. However, the BCCI continued to impose the life ban on him in spite of his repeated request to revoke it. Thus, now the former Indian speedster has approached the Supreme Court in this matter.
Yesterday, Sreesanth’s lawyer put forward his appeal in front of the Chief Justice of India. He has agreed to hear the case on the 5th of February. The Kerala High Court had earlier in October ordered him to stay away from all the cricket activities conducted by the BCCI. Sreesanth has hence challenged the court’s decision at the apex court.
The petition claimed that since his ban was revoked by the Single Judge bench of the High Court he should’ve been allowed to play. However, the Division Bench refused to do a judicial review of the BCCI’s decision and hence he has filed the petition.
Sreesanth was of the view that as a cricketer, he had the right live with dignity and reputation. He asserted it as a fundamental right of any sportsman. Thus he wants the decision of life ban on him imposed by the BCCI to be reviewed by the bench.
Sreesanth was a part of the World Cup winning team during 2011. Thus the whole world was shocked as he was charged with corruption activities in the Indian Premier League during the 2013 season. Representing the Rajasthan Royals back then, he was accused of spot-fixing.
The BCCI slapped him with a life ban in 2015 as Sreesanth never played competitive cricket ever since 2013. Recently, while he was freed of all charges, the BCCI has refused to lift his ban. He has even requested the Supreme Court to reveal the names in the closed envelope. There were 13 names in the envelope that were indicted by the Mudgal committee for corruption. The names have been confidential for a long time as the court has refused to reveal them in public. Hence, it remains to be seen if there is an appeal as such.