Putting an end to the murky IPl saga involving betting and spot-fixing scandals, the Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday barred former Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) chief N Srinivasan from contesting any future post in the apex cricketing body because of his conflict of interest as owner of the Chennai Super Kings (CSK). Without Srinivasan, the BCCI would now conduct fresh polls within six weeks.
Striking down an amendment introduced by Srinivasan in the BCCI rules, the SC held that in future no person who holds commercial interest in IPl, Champions Trophy, T20 or any event of BCCI will be entitled to contest or hold any post in the BCCI.
The SC also found Srinivasan’s son-in-law Guru-nath Meiyappan, who is an official of the CSK, and Raj Kundra, co-owner of the Rajasthan Royals, guilty of betting. The SC appointed a three-member committee headed by former Chief Justice of India RM lodha to decide on the quantum of punishment for the two and their teams.
Finding Srinivasan’s role suspect in covering up the betting activities of his son-in-law, the Bench of Justices TS Thakur and FM Ibrahim Kalifulla landed a huge blow to the cricketing czar on the conflict of interest front. The Bench found the former BCCI head’s commercial interest as head of India Cements that owned IPl franchisee CSK to be in direct conflict with his role as BCCI chief in awarding hefty compensation of Rs 10.4 crore and Rs 13.1 crore to CSK on two occasions when IPl matches were abandoned.
The court also noted that even when Meiyappan and Kundra faced betting charges as a team official of CSK and co-owner of Rajasthan Royals respectively, only the latter was placed under suspension. Incidentally, the IPl Anti-Corruption Code provides even for suspension of teams. The fact that both Meiyappan and CSK got away when Srinivasan was the BCCI chief clearly established conflict of interest in the eye of the court.
Discarding Srinivasan’s defence that he owned only 0.14 per cent equity in India Cements as “misleading”, the Bench found that his family indirectly owned 29.23 per cent stake in the company, sufficient to highlight how Srinivasan wore multiple hats.
On Meiyappan and Kundra, the court held that they were team officials whose role in betting was sufficiently established by a high-level probe committee headed by Justice Mukul Mudgal. On the quantum of punishment, whether they would face life ban along with their teams, the Bench constituted a high-level judicial committee comprising former CJI RM lodha and two former SC judges, Justices Ashok Bhan and RV Raveendran.
This committee will give its finding within six months and cover even the alleged involvement of IPl COO Sundar Raman in the betting scandal. The committee will also recommend reforms to be introduced in order to make the game of cricket free from possible conflict of interest situations. However, the court distinguished conflict of interest from professional engagement of cricket players as mentors, coaches and commentators in BCCI events and IPl teams on payment of remuneration.
“Conflict of interest appears to have led to current confusion and serious misgivings in the public mind as to the manner in which BCCI is managing its affairs,” the Bench said. The court struck down the amendment to the BCCI Rule 6.2.4 introduced by Srinivasan that it saw as the “true villain” as it permitted any BCCI official including Srinivasan to have commercial interest in IPl, T20 or Champions league. The Bench said, “The amendment which perpetuates such a conflict (of interest) cannot be countenanced and shall have to be struck down.”
Seeing the matter from the wider perspective of preserving the purity and integrity of cricket and to safeguard it from getting hijacked by corporate interests, the bench found the Rule 6.2.4 as an anti-thesis to the very essence of the game and fundamental principles that BCCI sought to preserve.
The question is, the Court observed, “can the BCCI afford to see the game lose its credibility in the eyes of those who watch it, by allowing an impression to gather ground that what goes on in the name of the game is no more than a farce because of sporting frauds like betting, match fixing and the like.”
The newly-formed Committee was asked to keep this aspect in mind while working out a mechanism to streamline working of BCCI and introducing transparency in its practices and procedures. The order of the said Committee will be binding on BCCI.