A division bench of justice SJ Vazifdar and justice MS Sonak had ruled on Tuesday that the panel was “illegal and unconstitutional”. The 61-page order copy was made available on Wednesday. The HC heard a PIL filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar and its secretary Aditya Verma. Quoting the Rule 2.2 of the BCCI, the HC said that it mandates that a three-member panel be set up and that at least one member be from the IPL’s Code of Behavior Committee.

“In other words, a commission cannot be constituted without at least one member of the IPL Code of Behavior Committee. It (rule) however, does not entitle respondent No.1 (BCCI) to constitute the commission without any member of the IPL Code of Behavior Committee,” the judges noted.

The IPL Code of Behavior Committee comprises five members — Sanjay Jagdale, Ajay Shirke, Rajiv Shukla, Ravi Shastri and Arun Jaitley. The BCCI counsel had said they were compelled to constitute the commission without any member of the IPL committee as no such member was available. The HC has raised serious doubts over the said “non-availability” of members.

“The said Sanjay Jagdale and Ajay Shirke were not available for the reasons we have already mentioned (resigned). We will presume that the said Rajiv Shukla was also not available,” added the judges. However, there were two other members — Shastri and Jaitley. “There is no reason furnished as to why they were not appointed on the commission. There is no explanation why respondent No.1 (BCCI) did not appoint them.”

The BCCI claimed that Shastri is busy with media commitments. “His travelling to various destinations as a commentator would not disable him from discharging his functions as a member of the commission,” the HC said. The probe panel had completed the inquiry in just one day. “The commission sat on only one day and closed the enquiry on the same day. There is nothing to indicate that he (Shastri) could not have spared a single day,” added HC. “It must be held therefore, that the said commission was not duly constituted. 

It was constituted contrary to and in violation of the provisions of Rules 2.2 and 3 of Section 6 of the operational rules,” the HC observed.