The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and its president in abeyance N Srinivasan on Monday requested the Supreme Court not to make public the Justice Mukul Mudgal Commitee report on the 2013-IPL betting and spot fixing scandal.
Answering to the Apex Court’s query, the cricket body’s counsel senior advocate, CA Sundaram told the bench headed by Justice TS Thakur that “the board has reservation in making the whole report public. However, the court can reveal the relevant portion in which it there is something serious.”
Concurring with Sundaram, Srinivasan’s counsel former law minister Kapil Sibal argued that “the entire report should not be made public but my client is entitled to know because the allegations are against him”.
Harish Salve, who appeared for the petitioner the Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB), initially argued that court should make the report public because the newspapers have reported stories based on speculation. “The cloud has to be dispelled,” he said.
The allegation against Srinivasan is that he had tried to cover up the act of his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, who as a team principal of Chennai Super Kings allegedly had links with bookies, saying he is a cricket enthusiast according to the first Mudgal committee report and covering up is also amounts to corruption as per the rule, Salve said.
He, later, agreed to partial revelation of the report.
The bench, after hearing all the sides, adjourned the case for November 14 when it will go through the report.
The Apex Court raised a slew of queries to the lawyers, including what would be the next step in case there is no findings against Srinivasan? And whether he can be allowed to head BCCI if Meiyappan is found to be involved in IPL-6 betting and spot-fixing scandal?
It said there will be "no difficulty" if nothing against Srinivasan is found in the report but what would happen if there are findings against his relative?
Responding to this, Sibal submitted that he (Srinivasan) should be allowed to return as BCCI president if there is nothing against him and legal action can be taken against his relative.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the Mudgal committee, submitted that the 35-page report does not name any player and they are referred to as numbers whose key is there in a separate report.
The bench was hearing CAB’s plea on which the court had ordered probe against Srinivasan and 12 other capped cricketers in the scandal.
The report said the BCCI chief had tried to cover-up the role of his son-in-law.
The bench also turned down BCCI's plea, seeking its direction to stay the proceedings on a plea at Bombay High Court which is to decide validity of amendments in the BCCI rules allowing Srinivasan to contest the election for the post of BCCI president.
The apex court, however, asked the high court to confine its hearing on the validity of the rules.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}