The Supreme Court on Monday told BCCI president-in-exile N Srinivasan that he had no business to chair the board’s working committee meetings till the high powered Committee headed by former CJI RM lodha cleared him and his team of any wrongdoing.
“You know that your position is vulnerable and this court has appointed an alternative arrangement…If (by our judgment) you can’t contest for president how can you continue to hold office,” a bench of Justices TS Thakur and FM Ibrahim Kalifulla remarked giving Srinivasan time till Friday to voluntarily withdraw from the board elections due to be held on March 2.
Srinivasan was hardly left with a choice as he faces a contempt petition filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) secretary Aditya Verma, the original petitioner who had earlier obtained an order from Supreme Court disqualifying Srinivasan’s candidature for the post of BCCI president, since he held commercial interests in Chennai Super Kings, an IPl franchise owned by his company India Cements.
The CAB argued that Srinivasan’s lawyers misinterpreted the January 22 judgment to mean that the Court has not held him guilty of any wrongdoing.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who appeared for Srinivasan informed the Court that his client suffered no legal disability to contest in the elections as the investigation in the case was already over.
For CAB, senior lawyer Nalini Chidambaram quoted the portion of SC judgment which clearly held that disqualification to contest will remain till the Committee constituted by the Apex Court gave its findings.
“...disqualification for contesting elections applicable to those who are holding any commercial interest in BCCI events shall hold good and continue till such time the person concerned holds such commercial interest or till the Committee considers and awards suitable punishment to those liable for the same, whichever is later,” the court had said.
It was despite this legal bar, Srinivasan convened the board meeting on February 8 and decided to preside over the elections on March 2. The bench asked Sibal, “Has the position of Srinivasan improved after the judgment…We found that you have clear conflict of interest. That makes him very vulnerable. He should not have participated in the meeting …We are not happy with it.”
Sibal assured the Court to apprise Srinivasan of the Court’s view and promised to reply by Friday. The bench asked CAB to be patient and not reduce the litigation into a “slanging match”.