In a development that marred the chances of ending the exile of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president N Srinivasan, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday held as “illegal and unconstitutional” the two-member probe panel set up by the BCCI to look into the IPl betting and spot-fixing scam.
Two days after the panel gave a clean chit to Srinivasan and held that there was no evidence to suggest that India Cements, owner of Chennai Super Kings (CSK), was either directly or indirectly involved in “betting” or “spot-fixing,” a HC division bench of justices SJ Vazifdar and MS Sonak observed that the panel was “illegal and unconstitutional”.
The HC made this observation, while allowing a public interest litigation filed by Cricket Association of Bihar and its secretary Aditya Verma challenging the constitution of the two-member commission.
In their petition, the petitioners had cited “conflict of interest” and spoken about “blatant bias” allegedly shown by Srinivasan, in his capacity as the then BCCI chief, in constituting the probe panel in the light of the allegations against himself.
“We have succeeded and the court has accepted our contentions. It is now up to the BCCI to see what is to be done next,” advocate Amit Naik, who appeared along with senior counsels Virendra Tulzapurkar and Birendra Saraf for the petitioners, said.
The BCCI and Srinivasan had, in their reply affidavits, termed the petition as “motivated and vested with personal interests.”
Srinivasan told the media earlier in the day: “The only thing I have heard is that the writ has been dismissed and no relief has been granted. I don’t want to say anything more.”
The Bombay High Court order notwithstanding, Srinivasan will attend the BCCI’s working committee meeting scheduled to be held in New Delhi on August 2. Queried specifically as to the capacity in which he would attending BCCI meet, Srinivasan said: “Come there and see for yourself as to what capacity I will be attending the meeting!”.
At Friday’s meeting in the normal course, Srinivasan would have resumed office as the BCCI chief, a post from which he had stepped aside to facilitate the probe against his son-in-law.