Sports
* SC tears into sidelined BCCI president * Ask why CSK shouldn't be banned * Calls for fresh blood in BCCI polls
Updated : Sep 29, 2017, 06:18 PM IST
What did Raj Kundra do that N Srinivasan didn't? This is what the Supreme Court asked the BCCI on Thursday. It may be recalled that the Rajasthan Royals co-owner was suspended soon after reports of his involvement in IPL betting came in. But why were the same rules not applied to the Chennai Super Kings owner, read N Srinivasan, in the same case?
Agreed, it was Gurunath Meiyappan and not Srinivasan, who was arrested for betting. But given that Gurunath is his son-in-law, Srinivasan can't wash his hands off the issue. More importantly, his daughter, Rupa Gurunath, is a whole-time director in India Cements Ltd, of which Srinivasan is vice-chairman and director. The company owns CSK.
A special bench of Justices TS Thakur and FM Kalifullah made the observation that the difference between Srinivasan's duty as board president and his interest as an owner of an IPL team is "obvious".
"As president of the BCCI, Srinivasan's job is to conduct the game in a fair manner and providing a level-playing field to every single team. But as the owner of India Cements, he definitely wants his team (CSK) to win and that's where the problem lies," the bench said.
Kundra's lawyer submitted before the court that "no notice or suspension orders" were served to his client.
Going by the rules, if a team official is found indulging in corrupt activities like betting and match-fixing, the franchise can be terminated. The Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee has said in its report that "Meiyappan was a team owner and indulged in betting and sharing team information".
Well, dna has learnt that Srinivasan was in touch with his lawyers even as the hearing was in progress. The suspended BCCI president has always maintained that he is not the owner of CSK; rather it's India Cements which owns the team. The court on Thursday asked for the shareholding pattern of India Cements to know the truth.
Going through the Bombay Stock Exchange website (Promoter and Promoter Group), Srinivasan and his family owns 28.23 per cent of India Cements. Even though that is a minority stake, it is also a controlling stake.
On his own, Srinivasan holds 0.14 per cent of the shares, or 427,400 shares, but he is also the director of the three investment companies — Prince Holdings, Anna Investment and EWS Finance and Investments — which bought out the Sanmar Group's holding in 2006 and holds 21.54 per cent (combined) in India Cements.
The court aptly asked Srinivasan's counsel "why would a company invest Rs 400 crore (IPL franchisee auction in 2007-08) if it was not expecting any gains in the coming years"?
Srinivasan has been wearing three different hats. From BCCI president to India Cements managing director to IPL franchise owner (as termed in CSK's own submission). That's how his conduct and integrity in spot-fixing related matters has been questioned by the petitioners.
Even Team India skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni's role as India Cements vice-president and CSK captain came under scrutiny.
"Let the fresh blood come in the upcoming BCCI elections. Let them have a chance to take appropriate action against all those tainted officials named in the report. And till then, all those named in these episodes as per the report should stand aside," the court said. It also questioned the BCCI's intention behind postponing the September 30 elections to December 17.
The court further observed that "CSK should be suspended without further inquiry".
Cricket Association of Bihar counsel Harish Salve also pleaded that "Srinivasan did everything to protect his son-in-law by misleading the Mudgal panel".
In between, the BCCI counsel came up with the suggestion that the SC may appoint a commission to punish the guilty named by the Mudgal Committee.
The hearing will resume on Monday.