The Supreme Court today refrained from staying the BCCI's amended rule that allowed its functionaries to hold franchise rights in IPL and other cricket tournaments, but issued notices to the Board and its secretary N Srinivasan on the validity of the amendment.
"It has been in operation for two years. We will issue notice," the bench comprising J M Panchal and R M Lodha said while refraining to entertain the plea for interim stay by senior counsel Harish Salve appearing for former BCCI president A C Muthiah.
The apex court also queried whether Srinivasan was present at the Governing Council meeting in 2008 wherein BCCI decided to award a compensation of Rs 47 crore to Srinivasan's Chennai Super Kings and the Rajasthan Royals for the cancellation of the "Champions League 2008."
While Salve insisted that the minutes of the meeting clearly indicated that he was present at the meeting, senior counsel Rohinton Nariman appearing for Srinivasan claimed that he was not present.
"I had instructions to say that he was not present," he submitted, which was countered by Salve who insisted that the minutes would reveal the fact that Srinivasan did not recuse himself.
Describing the amendment as "monstrous", Salve said it has to be stayed and Srinivasan should be suspended from the Board for having a "conflict of interests."
"This is monstrous rule which must go," Salve argued referring to the amendment made by the BCCI in 2008 which allowed its functionaries to have franchise or stakes in the conduct of IPL or other certain other tournaments.
The apex court while refraining from staying the rule granted four weeks to the Board and Srinivasan to file their replies.
A division bench of the Madras High Court had on March 24 declined to interfere with the amendment saying that they found "absolutely no merit to interfere" with a single judge's order turning down Muthiah's plea to set aside the amendment.
Earlier, Muthiah had approached the High Court alleging that the amendment was done to "favour" BCCI secretary Srinivasan, managing director of India Cements which owns the "Chennai Super Kings" and contended that the decision to exclude IPL and T-20 tournaments from the purview of the Board's regulation was "illegal and opposed to public policy."
Muthiah had said that under the unamended clause, no administrator of BCCI could have, directly or indirectly, any commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the Board and "the new regulation was brought in only to favour N Srinivasan".
However, the division bench turned down his plea, saying "We are of the prima facie view that suits have been filed only in the individual capacity and not in the capacity of an administrator."
Referring to Muthiah's contention that the clause amended by the Board should not have been made to exclude IPL and T-20 tournaments, the High Court had held that "BCCI had its own set of Rules and Regulations in the form of a memorandum.
