With the eligibility of N Srinivasan to stand for another presidential term in BCCI still uncertain, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked BCCI to hold over election of its office bearers till January 31, 2015. By this time, the Court is expected to pronounce the terms of reference for the proposed high-level Committee that will enquire Srinivasan’s conflict of interest and disciplinary action against persons and teams named in the IPl betting scam by the Justice Mudgal panel.
The suggestion to postpone the date of elections of its Annual General Body Meeting (AGM), earlier fixed for December 17, came from BCCI after it saw that the hearing in the IPl scam would extend into the next week.
On Wednesday, Srinivasan concluded his arguments suggesting that he was open to a high powered committee examining the disciplinary action to be initiated against persons named by Justice Mudgal panel but was of the view that conflict of interest must be generally enquired into and not specifically in relation to him.
He even gave an undertaking to the Court that in the event of his election as BCCI president, he will keep away from any decision on IPl scam or Working Committee or Governing Council meetings ahead of the next IPl season in April-May.
The bench of Justices TS Thakur and FM Ibrahim Kalifulla also heard counsels for Meiyappan, India Cements limited (which owns Chennai Super Kings), Rajasthan Royals and its part-owner Raj Kundra.
While the hearing would resume on Monday, the bench asked lawyers appearing for India Cements and Rajasthan Royals to suggest what penal consequences will visit the teams whose officials or owners were found involved in betting activities.
Counsel for India Cements senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani sought to escape liability by terming Meiyappan’s actions as his personal fault so long as he did not place the bets from the venue of the game. He argued that as owner the company had thousands of officials under him and it was practically impossible to keep an eye on what everybody did from the confines of their homes and offices.
The bench reasoned that such an argument was not conducive to ensure fairness in the game which requires team officials to be of high integrity. Kundra, on his part, questioned the Mudgal panel and its findings which did not adopt the BCCI rules nor gave the accused a fair hearing before indicting them.
The highlight of the day was Meiyappan, whose lawyer requested the Court to allow him his “right to silence” as he had to defend himself in a court of law on similar charges. “I have a right to silence,” said senior counsel Siddharth luthra appearing for Meiyappan.
The bench found him “non-committal” on being a CSK team official, despite India Cements and his own father-in-law conceding this fact in their arguments earlier in the day.