)
The Supreme Court on Thursday postponed the general body meeting to elect a new president of BCCI from December 17 till end of January as the arguments over the Mudgal Committee report on spot-fixing allegations are yet to conclude. It will be resumed on Monday and an order is likely to come only by the middle of January next year.
The bench headed by Justice T S Thakur on Thursday heard counsel for BCCI president-in-exile N Srinivasan, the BCCI itself, India Cement Ltd, Srinivasan’s son in law Gurunath Meiyappan, Rajasthan Royals and Raj Kundra who owned shares in that company.
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing Srinivasan, undertook before the court that if he was re-elected to the cricket body, he would stay away from the administration and governing council till the conflict of interest issue involving him and his IPL franchisee Chennai Super Kings is decided. He will completely keep away from IPL, counsel said.
BCCI counsel C A Sundaram opposed the role of the proposed committee to examine the punishment for Meiyappan and the conflict of interest question. He cautioned that it would affect the autonomy of the board. Moreover, the power of the court to review contractual matters of private bodies like BCCI is very limited. He argued that even if the court appoints its nominee in the committee, he would be an “outsider”.
The judges told him that the committee would look into the public function role of the board and it would instill confidence in the viewers of the game. “You have a duty to see that the game is clean. If thieves enter, you have a duty to stop that,” the judges observed. Sundaram pleaded: “Pleas preserve the autonomy of the board. The committee should not overhaul our system.”
Also Read
India Cements argued that the company was not responsible for the actions of Meiyappan. If a company official bets from his home, in his individual capacity, the company should not be held responsible, its counsel argued.
The judges repeatedly asked Meiyappan’s counsel whether he was an official of the team, but his counsel did not give an answer arguing that an answer would prejudice his trial. He pleaded the constitutional right to silence.
Rajasthan Royals said that it should not be dragged into the controversy without hearing it. The Mudgal committee has not summoned it and the report does not discuss its role. Raj Kundra’s counsel said that his indictment by the report was not based on any substantial evidence and was bad in law.
