New Delhi, Jan 22:
In a setback to N Srinivasan, the Supreme Court today barred him from contesting any BCCI polls unless he forsakes ownership of an IPL team and appointed a committee of retired judges to decide the punishment for his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra that could seal the fate of CSK and RR in the league.
The much-awaited verdict was delivered by a bench of Justices T S Thakur and F M I Khalifulla, which assailed the amendment in BCCI rules permitting cricket administrators like Srinivasan to have commercial interest by owing teams in IPL and Champions League and said it was bad on grounds of conflict of interest.
The apex court appointed a three-member committee of retired apex court judges headed by former Chief Justice of India R M Lodha to decide the quantum of punishment against Srinivasan’s son-in-law Meiyappan, who was also a CSK official and Kundra, co-owner of RR, who both were held guilty of betting.
The 138-page judgement virtually forces Srinivasan to quickly choose whether to contest BCCI’s chief’s post or hold on to Chennai Super Kings owned by India Cements Ltd (ICL) of which he is the Managing Director.
The Lodha Committee, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhan and R V Ravenderan, would hand down the punishment to Meiyappan and Kundra which under the IPL rules could lead to cancellation of the franchise relating to CSK and RR.
Notwithstanding the work of the three-member committee, the apex court directed that BCCI elections be held in six weeks “subject to the condition that no one who has any commercial interest in the BCCI events (including N Srinivasan) shall be eligible for contesting the elections for any post whatsoever”.
“We make it clear that the 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 bench said.
The rider in the judgement probably would make it difficult for Srinivasan to become the BCCI President, unless he quickly relinquishes his interest in the CSK as the apex court asked the Committee to conclude its work “as early as possible, but as far as possible within a period of six months.”
The bench said it was appointing an independent committee of judges keeping in view the “the trajectory of the present litigation, and the important issues it has raised”.
Further, the bench said “the profile of the individuals who have been indicted, would, in our opinion, demand that the award of punishment for misconduct is left to an independent committee to exercise that power for and on the behalf of BCCI.
“This would not only remove any apprehension of bias and/or influence one way or the other but also make the entire process objective and transparent especially when we propose to constitute a committee comprising outstanding judicial minds of impeccable honesty,” the bench said.
The apex court held that the allegation of betting against Meiyappan and Kundra stands proved while the charge of cover up against Srinivasan “is not proved”.
Under the IPL rules, the franchise of a team can be cancelled if a team official indulges in any act that brings the game to disrepute.
Declaring as “void and ineffective,” the amendment in 6.2.4 of the BCCI rules which enabled Srinivasan to acquire a team in the IPL, the bench said it “clearly negates the declarations and resolves of the BCCI by permitting situations in which conflict of interest would grossly erode the confidence of the people in the authenticity, purity and integrity of the game.
“An amendment which strikes at the very essence of the game as stated in the Anti Corruption Code cannot obviously co-exist with the fundamental imperatives.
“Conflict of interest situation is a complete anti-thesis to everything recognized by BCCI as constituting fundamental imperatives of the game hence unsustainable and impermissible in law,” the bench said..
“Suffice it to say that amendment to Rule 6.2.4 is the true villain in the situation at hand. It is the amendment which attempts to validate what was on the date of the award of the franchise invalid as Rule 6.2.4 did not as on that date permit an administrator to have any commercial interest in any event organized by BCCI.
While it may not be feasible at this stage to interfere with the award of the franchise to ICL, especially when hundreds of crores have been invested by the franchisee, the amendment which perpetuates such a conflict cannot be countenanced and shall have to be struck down,” the bench held.
It asked the judges committee to examine the amendments to the memorandum of association and rules and regulation considered necessary to provide a mechanism for resolving conflict of interest. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
