SC expresses unhappiness over Srinivasan’s participation in BCCI meeting
New Delhi,
February 23, 2015
Updated: February 23, 2015 16:07 IST
PTI
Former BCCI president N. Srinivasan.
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed unhappiness over N. Srinivasan’s participation in a BCCI meeting on February 8.
The apex court said “Srinivasan should not have done this, we have certainly found that there is a conflict of interest”.
Mr. Srinivasan said the apex court had disqualified him only from contesting elections and not holding post as BCCI president.
The court posted the case for Friday after senior advocate Kapil Sibal said he would take instructions from Mr. Srinivasan.
On January 22, 2015, heralding an overhaul in the Indian cricket administration, the Supreme Court on Thursday allowed theBoard of Control for Cricket in India
(BCCI) to hold elections in the next six weeks, but barred persons
holding commercial interests in the cricketing body’s events, including
Chennai Super Kings (CSK) team owner and BCCI president-in-exile, N.
Srinivasan, from contesting.
A Bench of Justices T.S. Thakur and Fakir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, in a
detailed judgment in the 2013 IPL betting and spot-fixing case, held
that the disqualification of people donning both caps of cricket
administrator and IPL team owner will continue until they choose to shed
one of them.
This means that N. Srinivasan, who is the Managing Director of India
Cements, the company which owns the Chennai Super Kings, has to shed his
equity in the CSK to be eligible to contest the BCCI elections.
As a prelude to this direction, the Bench held the February 2008
amendment to rule 6.2.4, which allowed cricket administrators to become
team owners, as “void and ineffective”, while observing that the
amendment “perpetuates” conflict of interest in the running of the
popular game.
It asked whether the BCCI, which it held as conducting a “public
function” and amenable to writ jurisdiction, can live with the idea that
the game is being played to cheat the public. The court said people
will lose interest if it is found that the game is run by a few business
interests.
The Bench however gave Mr. Srinivasan a clean chit on allegations made
against him that he had misused his official position in the BCCI to
cover-up the misdeeds like betting and spot-fixing indulged in by team
owners and officials during IPL games. It said these were mere
“suspicions” and “difficult” to prove.
The court further confirmed the Justice Mukul Mudgal probe committee’s
findings by holding Mr. Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and
Raj Kundra, part-owner of Rajasthan Royals IPL team, guilty of betting.
It dismissed claims made that Mr. Meiyappan was no team official but a
cricket enthusiast. Justice Thakur, who wrote the judgment, said there
was enough evidence to prove that Mr. Meiyappan was a team official
privy to sensitive information.
The Bench further went on to make franchises — CSK and RR — liable for
“misconduct” of Mr. Meiyappan and Mr. Kundra, saying that “misconduct is
not only punishable against team officials but also against
franchises”.
The Bench said it would not be fair to leave the task of deciding the
quantum of punishment of CSK, RR, Mr. Meiyappan and Mr. Kundra to either
the BCCI or to the apex court itself. So, it ordered the setting up of a
three-member high-powered committee led by former Chief Justice of
India R.S. Lodha and former Supreme Court judges Ashok Bhan and R.V.
Raveendran as members to decide the question of punishment.
It said the committee represented “outstanding judicial minds and men
with impeccable credentials” who will give the public confidence in the
objectivity and transparency of the inquiry and re-hauling of BCCI
structure.
Giving wide powers to the Justice Lodha Committee, the judgment said the
committee would further recommend measures to streamline BCCI
elections, eligibility of candidates and criteria for disqualification.
The committee would further define in detail what amounts to conflict of
interest and evolve a mechanism to avoid the situation. It would also
carry out the recommendations of the Justice Mudgal Committee and also
further probe the role and involvement of IPL COO Sundar Raman.
The
committee has been given further powers to bring in any recommendations
it sees fit in the BCCI functioning. Any decision taken by this
committee will be “final and binding on the BCCI”.
