N Srinivasan offers five alternatives to SC to decide course of action

BCCI on Tuesday replied to the SC with five alternatives in order to decide on the course of action or punishment to those found guilty in the IPL spot-fixing and betting case.

Following are the five options that BCCI submitted to the court.

  • BCCI’s internal disciplinary committee may look after the issue.
  • BCCI may nominate a committee of two independent experts
  • Court may appoint a disciplinary committee
  • Court may appoint a committee of 2 judicial officers
  • Mudgal Committee itself may decide on the course of action or punishment

Earlier in the day, the apex court told Srinivasan that immediate action needed to be taken against Gurunath Meiyappan and felt the best way to ensure this would be to keep the BCCI President-in-exile out of it.

The SC further recommended three options to Srinivasan’s counsel to proceed further in the matter.

Option 1: Resume with BCCI elections without Srinivasan and constitute a new BCCI body to decide over the matter.

Option 2: Constitute a body of BCCI governing council members to decide over the matter.

Option 3: `Constitute a committee of former judges that will take decision on the impending BCCI elections as well as other matters.

Srinivasan’s counsel inquired with the SC if any other options other than three suggested by it could be explored, to which the court responded by setting a deadline of IST 2:00 pm for Srinivasan’s legal team to come up with an alternative.

The court got tough on Srinivasan as it asked him whether his 400 crore investment in purchasing IPL team was love for cricket or business?

Supreme Court kept the pressure on N Srinivasan in the IPL spot-fixing and betting case as it objected to him attending Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA) meetings despite stepping aside as cricket administrator.

Clearly on the backfoot, Srinivasan admitted to his mistake and told the court that he should not have taken part in the TNCA meetings.

During the December 8 hearing, the bench headed by Justice S Thakur and F M Kalifullah had grilled Srinivasan on conflict of interest and said it was difficult for it to accept that the involvement of his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan – a team official of Chennai Super Kings – in betting during the IPL 2013 did not result in conflict of interest.

“Srinivasan is the vice chairman and managing director of India Cement Limited, an owner of IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings, your son-in-law is a team official and he is involved in betting. It is very difficult to accept the proposition that there is no conflict of interest,” said the

Making distinction between commercial interest and what a professional gets paid for rendering professional services, the court had said: “Those who invest money to earn money and those who give professional advice and get money (for it) are two different things.”

In the previous hearings, the court had questioned the BCCI as to why IPL franchise CSK shouldn’t be disqualified from the IPL and asked them to act immediately on the Justice (Retd) Mukul Mudgal report.

The court also had said that BCCI elections should go ahead, but directed that all board members who are under investigation to keep away. Then, it asked the Indian board if there was any provision in its constitution to debar Srinivasan from contesting the BCCI polls in future.

Spot-fixing and betting scandal in cricket surfaced in 2013 with Delhi Police arresting three Rajasthan Royals players of cash rich IPL – S Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan – in a midnight raid in Mumbai. Then, Mumbai police also unearthed betting links after they arrested Srinivasan’s son-in-law Meiyappan and Bollywood actor Vindu Dara Singh.

Last October, the apex court had constituted the Justice Mukul Mudgal committee to investigate the IPL spot-fixing and betting case. The three-member panel led by Justice Mudgal, a retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge, also includes Additional Solicitor General L Nageswara Rao and senior advocate Nilay Dutta in the committee.

And on February 10 this year, the committee submitted its first report to the court after conducting a four-month long probe. It is learnt that cricketers, board officials, cops, lawyers and even journalists had deposed before the panel and their depositions were recorded during the probe.

In the follow up, the court had asked the committee to continue its investigation of the persons named in the sealed envelope and the committee was also given greater powers to effectively conduct its probe.

Then, the committee submitted its final report to the apex court on November 3, thus allowing the court to proceed with the final phase of hearing.


Verma urges Asian Cricket Council to shun Srinivasan

shunThe unrecognised Cricket Association of Bihar Secretary Aditya Verma on Friday called on the Asian Cricket Council to bar N Srinivasan from heading the body, saying that allowing him to do so would be in violation of a Supreme Court order.

“…As on date Mr Srinivasan is debarred from functioning as the President of BCCI. If Mr Srinivasan is precluded from functioning as the President of BCCI because a probe panel has been constituted by the Hon`ble Supreme Court into the serious allegations made by the probe panel against him, the ACC cannot allow N Srinivsan as President of ACC,” Verma said in a statement.

“Any such permission will sully the image of ACC and will bring disrepute to ACC and the BCCI would be made a laughing stock… If a person is not fit to hold the post of President of the BCCI then the said person should be unfit to hold office of ACC President,” he added.

Srinivasan has been forced to step aside as BCCI President on the directions of the Supreme Court in the wake of the ongoing probe into the IPL spot-fixing and betting scandal.

(Source: PTI)

SC restraint order on BCCI chief Srinivasan to continue

N Srinivasan, though re-elected BCCI president on Sunday, would remain unable to function as the board chief since the Supreme Court on Monday declined to revoke its orders restraining him. The apex court bench headed by Justice AK Patnaik asked the Board of Control for Cricket in India

 (BCCI) to furnish its proposal under which Srinivasan will be allowed to discharge his duties mandated by the BCCI constitution while completely keeping off the probe into allegations against his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan of involvement in spot fixing and betting in the lucrative Indian Premier League (IPL).

The court said this after the BCCI pleaded that Srinivasan be allowed to discharge certain responsibilities as the board chief.

Senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Cricket Association of Bihar, said they could respond to the suggestion by the BCCI only after receiving the concrete proposal in writing.

The apex court was hearing a petition filed last week by Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) secretary Aditya Verma pleading that Srinivasan be barred from contesting the BCCI presidential election. He also wanted the SC to issue an interim ban preventing Srinivasan from being a member of any committee of the Indian cricket board.

The petition was filed on the ground that Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan is being probed for placing bets in the Indian Premier League (IPL) matches.

The apex court allowed Srinivasan to contest the election but said that he cannot discharge his duties.

In the course of the hearing, the court observed that “so many things are coming about IPL and something seems wrong with the apex cricketing body… why it has lost its credibility”, Justice Patnaik asked BCCI counsel CA Sundaram.

(Source: IANS)

BCCI amendment: Petition sent to Supreme Court larger bench

The Supreme Court Thursday referred to a larger bench a petition by former Indian cricket board president A.C. Muthia challenging the amendment to Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) rules that permitted its officebearers to own IPL T20 teams.

The apex court bench referred the matter to a larger bench following a divergence of views between Justice J.M. Panchal and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.

Justice Panchal dismissed the petition challenging the amendment, which permitted BCCI secretary N. Srinivasan to own Chennai Superkings. On the other hand, Justice Misra allowed the appeal saying if Srinivasan wanted to continue to hold the franchise of Chennai Superkings he would have to give up his position in BCCI.

BCCI rules prohibited its officebearers from engaing in activities that conflict with the commercial interest of the cricketing body. However, this provision was amended to facilitate its officebearers from having stake in IPL T20 teams.

Justice Panchal said the matter may be placed before Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia for necessary directions