SC questions Srinivasan’s return as BCCI chief; doubts over his conflict of interests still remain

Srinivasan, whose India Cements owns the Chennai IPL franchise, had banked on the panel’s finding — that he was not involved in corruption and did not try to scuttle its probe — to seek a nod from the court to run for another term as BCCI president. But the court said “questions will arise” if he contests the election.

“You will have to address the question of conflict of interest as head of BCCI who is also owner of an IPL team, whose official is found to be involved in betting. You may not be involved directly but if somebody very close to you or any official of your team is involved, questions will arise if you should at all contest the election. Don’t go only by the report. Despite the findings in the report, your status is different considering you are the BCCI president and also own a team,” said a bench of Justices T S Thakur and FMI Kalifulla.

(Also Read: Sachin Tendulkar refuses to comment on Mudgal report)

Lalit Modi wants action!

I agree conflict of interest must go. Further the guilty must be punished and made example off can’t sweep it under the carpet.

— Lalit Kumar Modi (@LalitKModi) November 24, 2014

Csk and RR must be cancelled. If owners indulge in betting activity the rule book must be thrown at them. Raman should be locked up too

— Lalit Kumar Modi (@LalitKModi) November 24, 2014

All bcci members who prematurely voted in favor of Srini and gang must be disallowed or banned to participate in cricket activity

— Lalit Kumar Modi (@LalitKModi) November 24, 2014

Srinivasan, along with three other cricket officials, had been issued notices by the court last week after their names appeared in the Mudgal report. Srinivasan’s son-in-law and Chennai Super Kings’ official Gurunath Meiyappan, Rajasthan Royals co-owner Raj Kundra and IPL chief operating officer Sundar Raman were the others named in the 35-page report.

On Monday, the bench also questioned whether it was fair for the BCCI president to own a team in the IPL. “As the BCCI president, your role is to ensure the game is played properly. But you also own a team that is participating in a tournament. Is there no conflict of interest? As the president, your duty is to provide a level playing field to all the teams and make sure the game is played in its pristine form, while as the owner of a team, your interest is that your team should win. Is that not a conflict of interest?” the bench asked Srinivasan’s counsel Kapil Sibal.

Sibal, however, maintained that India Cements and not Srinivsan owned the Chennai Super Kings and that the latter only had a very small shareholding in the company. But the bench took note of the fact that Srinivasan was the managing director of India Cements.

BCCI counsel C A Sundaram intervened to defend Srinivasan, saying the BCCI’s working committee had 21 state associations and that the president was not the sole decision-making authority. He also referred to the rules that allowed a BCCI office-bearer to have ownership in an IPL team and said this was done before Srinivasan became the president.

The court shot back: “Do you mean to say that the president is a mute spectator in these meetings when BCCI takes decisions regarding the IPL? The IPL committee is also constituted by the BCCI only. You cannot create a distinction between BCCI and IPL in fine terms since IPL is after all your creation. It seems to us that a mutually beneficial society is being run in the form of the IPL.”
Censuring the BCCI for supporting Srinivasan’s arguments, the bench reminded the cricketing body that the game of cricket is “like a religion” in this country and that “the process must remain pure”.

“If you allow these things to happen, you are killing the game. Nobody will enter the stadium if they think a match is already fixed. This has to remain the gentleman’s game although there are gentlemen who are making a business out of it. You must know recognition comes only when one lakh people turn up at the Eden Gardens stadium to watch a match. Do you want to sit on the liquidation of the game after the confidence of a common man in the street in shattered? Can you afford that?” it asked.

The court told the BCCI that the benefit of doubt should go to the game and not to individuals, while also turning down BCCI’s suggestion that the matter may now be left to them and that they would take appropriate action based on the Mudgal panel’s findings.

“To say leave everything to BCCI would lead to the assertion that everything in BCCI is clean. But what happens if an official in the BCCI is also under a cloud of doubt… People in this country expect BCCI to ensure the game is played in its purest form. We will have to see there is no suspicion against you,” said the bench.

WHAT THE COURT SAID
* You (Srinivasan) are only assuming you have been given a clean chit
* Srinivasan needs to address serious questions of conflict of interest
* BCCI is bound by the doctrine of public trust; people expect it to keep the game clean
* Mutually beneficial society seems to be run in the form of IPL
* Cricket must be played in its true spirit and should remain a gentleman’s game
* If you allow these things (betting/fixing) to happen, you are killing the game
* Benefit of doubt should go in favour of the game rather than any individual
* Can BCCI afford to sit over the liquidation of the game?