N Srinivasan’s defence on conflict of interest: Several others linked to both BCCI, IPL

He argued before a bench led by Justice TS Thakur that if conflict of interest was to be gauged with this yardstick, then hundreds of persons would come under its shadow. The counsel argued that 364 names – including the likes of Ravi Shastri, Venketesh Prasad and Lalchand Rajput – have been part of both the cricket administration and the IPL over the last seven editions of the tournament”

“The IPL may not even take place if the rule is to be interpreted in this manner,” Sibal asserted.

The arguments in the court proceeded on Rule 6.2.4 of the BCCI, which exempted the IPL and Champions League Twenty20 from the general rule that no administrator, officer, player or umpire shall have any direct or indirect commercial interest in matches or events conducted by the Board.

Sibal rejected the argument that conflict of interest would be obvious if a person holding a position in the BCCI is also associated with an IPL-related venture. Srinivasan has been facing the co’rt’s criticism over his stake in the Chennai Super Kings, although he was the BCCI chief. Srinivasan is the managing director of India Cements, which owns CSK.

Several retired cricketers who have been associated with the BCCI in different capacities are also associated with the IPL as players, mentors or coaches, while some others have taken up assignments relating to commentary.

On the last date of hearing, the bench had said Srinivasan’s “conflict of interest was obvious” since as the BCCI chief, it was his duty to ensure that the game remains clean, but, as a CSK owner, his interest was to see that his team wins the tournament. The court said there could be no justification available to him after it had been held by the Mudgal probe panel that officials of his team were found involved in corrupt activities.

Arguing for petitioner Cricket Association of Bihar, senior advocate Nalini Chidambaram accused Srinivasan of direct conflict of interest since he owned an IPL team despite being the BCCI chief. The CAB also alleged that Srinivasan used his influence to protect his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan in the 2013 IPL betting and spot-fixing scandal.

Sibal is expected to continue his arguments next week.

Srini has his say Srinivasan, meanwhile, denied he had tried to shield his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan in the IPL-2013 betting and spot-fixing case and claimed it was in fact he who had given the go ahead for investigating Meiyappan.

Defending the ousted BCCI chief, Sibal contended Srinivasan had voluntarily stayed away from investigations involving Meiyappan as an abundant caution and to ward off any accusation of bias.

A bench of Justices Thakur and FMI Kalifulla asked Sibal whether Srinivasan had stepped aside after acknowledging that betting charges against his son-in-law would also reflect on his own status. “No, it was not for this reason. Srinivasan himself decided to keep away since he was wary of possibility of people alleging bias against him. So much has been already said against him without any basis,” replied Sibal.

Sibal asserted that within a couple of days after media reports came out against Meiyappan’s alleged involvement in corrupt activities, Srinivasan, on the advise of BCCI governing council member Arun Jaitley, decided to step aside and leave it on other BCCI officials to decide on the course of probe against his son-in-law.

He said that a two-member judicial commission was set up under the pertinent BCCI rules to look into Meiyappan’s conduct and Srinivasan did not participate in any meeting relating to such proceedings.