Mudgal report: Supreme Court not to disclose names of players

“This case may have different stages and we don’t know what kind of orders we will be passing during the course of the proceedings. We may pass several orders depending upon how we proceed in the matter. We will decide on making the entire report public at an appropriate stage,” said a bench of Justices T S Thakur and FMI Kalifulla.

The court had to make it clear as senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for petitioner Cricket Association of Bihar, demanded that the entire report should now be made public to put an end to the speculation being made by media and others.

“There was an error of judgement on my part when I had said that the report should not be made public. I think the entire report should now be put in the public domain to clear the air as to who are the players mentioned in the report…otherwise the entire team is portrayed as corrupt by the media now. Such mindless speculations must end,” Salve added.

NO ADDING FUEL TO FIRE 

BCCI counsel C A Sundaram however opposed this plea, contending it was not necessary at this stage and disclosing everything could prejudice the case of the individuals. “The purpose of these proceedings are not to prosecute or punish anyone. These are not the kind of orders that can be passed in this case. Making the entire report public would in fact add fuel to fire and individuals will definitely be prejudiced,” he argued.

Representing ousted BCCI chief

Srinivasan, senior counsel Kapil Sibal also supported Sundaram’s views and said that the stage had not reached where the court required to make the entire report public and that there were several other pertinent aspects of the matter, which needed to be first delved upon. Accepting the arguments by BCCI and Srinivasan, the court said it would not order disclosure of the complete report at this juncture.

This, however, may not go down well with Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and Rajasthan Royals co-owner Raj Kundra since they have been indicted by the probe panel. The duo has sought all the materials on the basis of which Mudgal panel had returned adverse findings against them.

Appearing for Kundra, senior advocate Shekhar Nephade reminded the court that he had moved an application, demanding all the materials that led the panel hold him guilty of obnoxious activities. Kundra, in his affidavit, had said that the Mudgal report suffered with “inherent flaws” and posed threats to his reputation without explaining the basis of the indictment. Nephade on Tuesday called the panel’s report as “cryptic” and said he would need all the material to furnish a proper reply.

Similarly, Meiyappan’s counsel senior advocate Sidharth Luthra also demanded all the documents that formed the basis of the probe panel’s adverse findings against him. “There are so many things being alleged against me (Meiyappan) by the petitioner and also by the panel. I must get the materials to be in a state to respond,” Luthra said.

Notably, supply of all the documents to Kundra and Meiyappan would mean making the entire report public and hence the court would require to take a call on how to deal with the plea by the two since they have been held impropriety by the panel but they currently have only the conclusion part of the report.

Meanwhile, Meiyappan remained the centre of argument for Salve as he sought to convince the bench that his association with Chennai Super Kings was attempted to be covered up by Srinivasan and that it demonstrated the latter’s alleged misdeed. Focussing on the first report, Salve said that Srinivasan and India Cements had always taken a stand that Meiyappan was not related to the CSK although there were evidence to prove otherwise. The bench will resume hearing on Thursday.