The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that N Srinivasan should make a choice between being BCCI president and owning IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings. "If you wish to contest as president, your investment is endangered. If you don't fight the elections, your investment is safe," the two-judge bench comprising Justice TS Thakur and Justice FM Kalifullah observed.
During the day-long hearing, Srinivasan admitted — for the first time — that he "should not have attended the BCCI's meetings as a representative of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association after agreeing to step aside as president".
But he did so only after he being severely criticised by the court, which said his "passion for cricket" was just a little too much. "We understand that you (Srinivasan) are passionate about the game. But don't be over-passionate.
How can you keep attending the BCCI's working committee meetings as the TNCA representative when you have been asked to keep a distance from its (the BCCI's) working?" the bench observed.
"We can see that as recently as November 18, some three weeks back, you have attended the BCCI meeting. Is it fair on your part when you had promised the court that you will have nothing to do with the working of the BCCI?" the bench observed. Kapil Sibal, Srinivasan's counsel, admitted that "in retrospect, I may say that I should not have done this".
Earlier, Sibal reiterated Srinivasan's contribution to the game of cricket and cricketers during the last few decades. Sibal credited Srinivasan for the BCCI's decision to make a one-time payment to former cricketers two years ago. He also said that if not for Srinivasan, former players wouldn't be getting their monthly pension.
The bench silenced Sibal with these questions — "What about the Rs 400 crore he spent to purchase the Chennai Super Kings? Was that his love for cricket or business?" Taken aback, Sibal said, "It was business."
However, another fact kept hidden from the court is that Srinivasan has not only been attending BCCI meetings, but he has also become chairman of the International Cricket Council (ICC) as the BCCI's representative.
Srinivasan has also been attending meeting of the Asian Cricket Council (ACC). He attended a meeting in Dubai as recently as November 7. Yet he maintains he has stepped aside.
The court also asked Srinivasan's counsel to suggest alternatives in order to decide on the course of action against those found guilty in the IPL spot-fixing and betting case.
After the lunch break, Sibal presented five options in the form of an affidavit:
1. Allow the IPL's 'Code of Behaviour Committee' (comprising Sanjay Patel, Ranjib Biswal, Amitabh Choudhary, Ravi Shastri and Arindam Ganguly) to decide on the quantum of punishment;
2. The matter be referred to a two-member committee, independent of the BCCI;
3. The Supreme Court may nominate members of the BCCI/IPL to decide on the quantum of punishment;
4. The Supreme Court may formulate a two-member committee of retired judges to deal with the matter;
5. The Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee should look into the matter.
Option 4 was discussed in detail, but the court didn't make a decision. The argument over whether or not Srinivasan should be allowed to contest the BCCI elections slated for December 17 is still inconclusive. The court has decided to take up the matter again on Wednesday.
){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}