The Supreme Court Monday refused to interfere with the BCCI decision to extend the term of its current office bearers beyond Sep 30 and hold the annual general body meeting Nov 20.
“Your real purpose is to hold the election now so that N. Srinivasan is prevented from contesting,” said a bench of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla as senior counsel Nalini Chidambram contested the decision of the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) Working Committee to hold the AGM Nov 20 instead of Sep 30 as mandated by the apex cricketing body’s constitution.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Thakur said they were concerned with the limited issue of the allegations of spot fixing and betting in the IPL 2013 allegedly involving Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and others and being investigated by Justice Mukul Mudgal.
The plea of Chidambram, appearing for the Cricket Association of Bihar, that at present there were no office bearers of the BCCI as their term came to an end Sep 30 did not cut ice with the court.
Meeting the contention of the Cricket Association of Bihar, senior counsel C.A. Sundaram, appearing for the BCCI, told the court that extension of the existing term of the cricketing body has been approved by the registrar of co-operative societies in Chennai. BCCI is a registered society in Chennai.
Besides this, Sundaram said the term of the officer bearers was from one AGM to the next AGM and if, for some reasons, the AGM could not take place on the appointed date, it would not mean that the cricketing body is denuded of its office bearers.
He cited the Companies Act in support of his plea countering the contention of Cricket Association of Bihar.
“We can’t take away the powers of the registrar of co-operative society to extend the term of an existing body under the rules,” the court observed as Chidambram sought to impress upon the court that the term of the office bearers was not co-terminus with the AGM that elected them to the next AGM but Sep 30 under the BCCI constitution.
Apparently not persuaded by the CAB’s plea, the court asked BCCI and Srinivasan to respond to the application by the CAB challenging the decision to extend the term of the current office bearers of the cricketing body till Nov 20. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal appeared for Srinivasan.
Asking for their response, the court said that it would take up the matter on Nov 10 when it is scheduled to consider the report of Justice Mudgal, who is investigating the allegations of spot fixing and betting allegedly involving Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and others.
Justice Mudgal has already submitted an interim report which was taken up for consideration by the court during its hearing on Sep 1. As he had sought some more time to complete the investigation, the court granted him two months more and had fixed Nov 10 for the next hearing.