Nips chief-in-exile’s bid to distance himself from IPl scam ahead of BCCI elections
The Supreme Court on Monday found conflict of interest coming in the way of allowing BCCI president-in-exile N Srinivasan a second run to head the cricket body.
With BCCI elections due in December, Srinivasan’s attempt to distance himself from the IPl tournament and alleged betting activities involving his team Chennai Super Kings and his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan failed to convince the court. The SC proceeded to examine what consequent steps must follow against Meiyappan, CSK and its team officials.
Although Srinivasan has not been named for match fixing or in scuttling the probe as BCCI president by the Justice Mudgal Panel, the Bench of Justices TS Thakur and FM Ibrahim Kalifulla refused to agree that the BCCI chief-in-exile had got a clean chit. It pointed out that the BCCI, despite being a private society, cannot escape responsibility as it holds the trust of millions of Indians for whom this game is a religion.
“If confidence of common man is shattered, what remains in this gameIJ Do you want to sit over liquidation of this game,” the Bench said, responding to the suggestion of senior counsel Kapil Sibal who was representing Srinivasan that the allegations against his team or relatives cannot be a roadblock for him to stand in the BCCI election as the Mudgal Panel exonerated him of all charges.
“You are assuming it,” the Bench said, adding, “The question is whether you should at all be present in the BCCI.”
The court asked Sibal not to go by the Mudgal report alone. “Despite these findings, your involvement as owner of a team, whose officials are involved in betting, will affect your standing as official of the BCCI…If you are allowing these things to happen, you are killing the game. Nobody will enter the stadium if they come to know it’s a fixed game. It is a gentleman’s game. The spirit of the game must be kept alive.”
Senior BCCI counsel CA Sundaram informed the Court that the Board was prepared to take the Mudgal report as “gospel truth” and will initiate independent probe by its Working Committee. For IPl, he informed there is a separate governing body and a Commission to probe misconduct. For the bench, the IPl and the BCCI hardly made any difference. “IPl is a by-product of BCCI. From what you say it seems officials of the BCCI floated teams as they had the wherewithal and this IPl became like a mutual benefit scheme.”
Sundaram defended Srinivasan by citing bye-laws of the Board permitting officials to own the IPl teams. But the bench reiterated its concern. It said, “As president (of Board) it’s your duty to ensure level playing field, that there should be no match fixing, betting or things of this sort. That is your duty. And on the other hand what is your interest as team owner. It is to win.”
Sibal pointed out that institutionally there is no conflict of interest, but the bench replied, “Issues of conflict of interest will arise between persons managing the BCCI and their kin. It cannot be wished away under the doctrine of public trust.”
The petitioner, Cricket Association of Bihar, tried to further mount pressure on Srinivasan by producing Mudgal panel’s first report to allege cover-up by the BCCI president. With Meiyappan’s role as CSK official indulging in betting getting clear, they questioned why the team was not blacklisted under the IPl Code of Conduct. The arguments will continue on Tuesday.