 "Apex court to name panel to probe IPL spot-fixing")
Amid the debate on the formation of the second investigation panel for the Indian Premier league (IPL) spot-fixing scam, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order and decided to name its choice for the panel.
At the last hearing, the parties could not agree on the names proposed as they said there was a conflict of interest in each of the three. The court then asked the Mukul Mudgal panel to conduct further investigation into the role of the suspended Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) chief N Srinivasan and 12 other cricketers named in the preliminary inquiry report.
When the Bench headed by A K Patnaik resumed hearing on Tuesday, there was no consensus on the new names proposed. One was Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director M L Sharma. Others were police officers from Chennai, Delhi and Jaipur.
The counsel for Srinivasan objected to the appointment of a new panel. The court did not take notice of this. The counsel requested the court to allow him to continue as the chief, as the investigation so far had not reached any definitive conclusion regarding his venality. The court dismissed this.
The Cricket Association of Bihar objected to Srinivasan representing the BCCI at the International Cricket Council. But the court observed it would not go into the issue in these proceedings. This was the only relief Srinivasan got in Tuesday's hearing.
At the last hearing, the parties could not agree on the names proposed as they said there was a conflict of interest in each of the three. The court then asked the Mukul Mudgal panel to conduct further investigation into the role of the suspended Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) chief N Srinivasan and 12 other cricketers named in the preliminary inquiry report.
When the Bench headed by A K Patnaik resumed hearing on Tuesday, there was no consensus on the new names proposed. One was Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director M L Sharma. Others were police officers from Chennai, Delhi and Jaipur.
More From This Section
The judges are hopeful the new panel will file its report in four months. Then, a new Bench will take up the matter as Patnaik is retiring in June.
The counsel for Srinivasan objected to the appointment of a new panel. The court did not take notice of this. The counsel requested the court to allow him to continue as the chief, as the investigation so far had not reached any definitive conclusion regarding his venality. The court dismissed this.
The Cricket Association of Bihar objected to Srinivasan representing the BCCI at the International Cricket Council. But the court observed it would not go into the issue in these proceedings. This was the only relief Srinivasan got in Tuesday's hearing.