The Supreme Court on Thursday said sidelined BCCI president N Srinivasan cannot contest elections for the Indian cricket board’s governing body presidency as long as he is involved in a “conflict of interest” situation as an owner of IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings (CSK).
The apex court said this while striking down an amendment to the BCCI rules which permitted the office bearers of the apex cricket body to have commercial interests in the Indian Premier League (IPL) and the Champions League Twenty20 and all events organised by the BCCI.
The apex court bench, headed by Justice T.S. Thakur, held Srinivasan’s son-in-law and CSK “official” Gurunath Meiyappan, and IPL franchise Rajasthan Royals’ co-owner Raj Kundra guilty of betting and said the punishment will not only be confined to them but also extend to the franchises they represent.
The court set up a three-member committee headed by former Chief Justice R.M. Lodha to decide, besides other issues, the quantum of punishment to be given to Meiyappan and Kundra.
The court also asked Srinivasan to stay away from the BCCI on account of his commercial interest in CSK.
But the court made a distinction between commercial interest and professional interest in respect of service rendered by prominent former cricketers Sunil Gavaskar and current Indian team’s director Ravi Shastri as commentators.
Following are some of the key points in the SC ruling:
On N Srinivasan
SC gives N Srinivasan clean chit as charges of cover-up against him in the IPL spot-fixing and betting case have been not proved.
N Srinivasan or any administrator having commercial interest in cricket can’t contest for BCCI post till they have those interests.
On BCCI
BCCI did not adhere to prescribed procedures while conducting probe in IPL spot-fixing and betting scandal.
BCCI is amenable to article 226 and judicial law and their functions are public functions.
Amendment in BCCI rules allowing Srinivasan to own IPL team is bad. SC strikes down BCCI’s rule amendment of 6.2.4 which gave right to BCCI’s official to have stake in IPL and CLT20. No one can be judge in his own cause and principles of natural justice are sacrosanct. No rule can permit a conflict of interest. If the purity of the game is undermined then the essence of the game will be lost. Rule 6.2.4 is unsustainable and illegal.
Three Member Committee of former Judges RM Lodha, Ashok Bhan and RV Ravindran constituted to recommend reforms and amendments by BCCI.
SC ordered that BCCI may hold its election in 6 months, but people having conflict of interest will not contest election
Issue on whether eminent players etc. are impacted by Rule 6.2.4 is not subject matter of petition.
BCCI performs key public functions and is amenable to wit juridical under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
State has chosen not to bring law to check monopoly of BCCI.
