N Srinivasan can’t contest BCCI elections, board functions public and amenable to judicial reviews, says Supreme Court

The bench of Justices T S Thakur and F M I Kalifulla held that conflict of interest had arisen in Srinivasan’s case since he played a role in organising and managing events like the IPL in which Chennai Super Kings, a team owned by his company India Cements Ltd, participated while he took part in decisions concerning the team.

It asked the BCCI to conduct within six weeks its election in which “no one who has any commercial interest in BCCI events, including Srinivasan, shall be eligible for contesting the elections for any post whatsoever”. The court, however, cleared Srinivasan of alleged cover-up in the IPL corruption case, underlining that the charges against him could “at best raise a suspicion” but did not stand proved.

READ: Srinivasan’s conflict of interest obvious

Lending credence to the Mudgal panel probe report, the bench also held Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and Rajasthan Royals co-owner Raj Kundra guilty of betting in the 2013 IPL, and asked a new three-member committee to determine the quantum of punishment for them under IPL operational rules and the BCCI anti-corruption code.

The bench made it clear that franchisee CSK and RR were also liable to be punished under the regulations since Meiyappan and Kundra were held to be “team officials” of the two IPL teams and their quantum of punishment would depend on the degree of misconduct.

The committee will further probe the allegation of betting against BCCI chief operating officer Sunder Raman and, if he is found guilty, will award punishment.

READ: Extremely happy with Supreme Court judgement, says Lalit Modi 

Nixing Rule 6.2.4 which allowed administrators to hold commercial stakes in BCCI events, the bench said that the rule permitted situations where “conflict of interest would grossly erode the confidence of the people in the authenticity, purity and integrity of the game”. It described this rule as “a true villain of the situation” hampering the purity of the game and giving rise to suspicions of sporting fraud.

The bench set up a three-member panel — it will be headed by former Chief Justice of India R M Lodha and will also include former Supreme Court judges Justices Ashok Bhan and R V Raveendran — to recommend sweeping reforms that the BCCI requires to undergo so that “demands of institutional integrity are met suitably in larger public interest” and a mechanism is put in place to resolve all situations of conflict of interest.

The panel has been asked to make recommendations for amendments to the memorandum of association, constitution, rules and regulations of the BCCI, to rejig the manner in which the cricketing body has been managing its affairs while discharging what the court called “important public functions”.

The bench said that its order of disqualifying those with commercial interests from contesting elections would continue till the panel awards suitable punishment to those held guilty of misconduct or till a person concerned does not give up on all such stakes, whichever happens later.

“The expectations of millions of cricket lovers in particular and public at large in general have lowered considerably the threshold of tolerance for any mischief, wrong doing or corrupt practices which ought to be weeded out of the system. Conflict of interest is one area which appears to have led to the current confusion and serious misgivings in the public mind as to the manner in which BCCI is managing its affairs,” it said.

It asked the panel to give notices to all the parties before spelling out the punishment and said all such orders would be binding on the parties concerned and the BCCI. The parties could move appropriate legal forum, which in this case would be the Supreme Court, if they are aggrieved by the orders passed by the panel which has to complete the task within six months. While Meiyappan and Kundra face a life ban, the franchisee could get terminated if the panel decides to awards the maximum punishment.

With these orders, the court disposed a bunch of petitions moved by the Cricket Association of Bihar. The association, through Aditya Verma, had sought quashing of amended Rule 6.2.4, besides restraining Srinivasan from contesting elections.