Out of playing area, into courtroom drama

This year saw the culmination of an experience that was both unique and satisfying for a journalist. I have spent a major part of my career so far covering sports, mainly cricket, on all kinds of grounds. From the nondescript to the best. However, the later part of 2014 and then in 2015, I spent more time at the Supreme Court covering a case that rocked the cricket world.

In a landmark judgement on July 14 this year, the Apex Court suspended Indian Premier League (IPL) franchises Chennai Super Kings (CSK) and Rajasthan Royals for two years following the IPL spot-fixing case.

I was particularly concerned with the conflict of interest charge against CSK owner N Srinivasan because he was also the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India at that time.

As the case unravelled in the courtroom, it was also an eye opener on how arguments are moulded to change the complexion of a case.

It was a roller coaster ride for me. As I heard arguments by eminent lawyers, it often filled me with self doubt and sometimes gave me moments of exhilaration.

There were times, when my reports in dna were discussed in the courtroom and it was very satisfying professionally.

Though Srinivasan was found not guily of betting or corruption but the court did put a question mark over his conflict of interest.

I realised and often felt while covering the case that I myself was a part of it. Felt like I am fighting it. The case was close to my heart. Having been a cricketer and played at the first class level, I had gone on to cover the sport as a journalist and done so through my entire professional career. The case had hogged national and international headlines.

Whether cricket should be allowed to run the way it was, or make it accountable as it was losing credibility with the charges of spot-fixing and conflict of interest matters had thrown the entire cricketing fraternity into turmoil.

That it is not all about winning but reporting bringing out.

On the one hand, there were rich people like Srinivasan, who had the privilege of hiring the who's who of legal world, and on the other there was this nondescript man from Patna who petitioned the case — Aditya Verma — who was being charged with playing into the hands of Srinivasan baiters. Verma, till then, was known for his battle to get his state Bihar recognised by the BCCI.

It was another packed house at Court No. 2. In front of Supreme Court special bench of Justice TS Thakur and FM Kalifullah, former Union minister and leading lawyer Kapil Sibal claimed that allegations of conflict of interest against his client Srinivasan was "nothing new" in the world of sports.

He took names of cricketing legends such as Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri, Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble, saying that if Srinivasan was being barred in this case, then all these greats would lose their livelihood.

Srinivasan's counsel said there was no conflict of interest in his client being the president of BCCI as well as the owner of CSK. Sibal said if this was the case, then the mentioned cricketers were also in conflict of interest as they were earning money from IPL, despite holding posts in the BCCI.

Well, the leading lawyer was certainly powerful in his arguments. For a reporter like me who was trying to figure out the tricky legal aspects, it seemed that the case was taking a complete U-turn at this juncture.

A week before that, Srinivasan's counsel had cited International Hockey Federation's (FIH) policy to the Apex Court saying that "such a thing is common in several sports bodies, including FIH and the world football body, FIFA".

I decided to ask for FIH's opinion in this regard. So, during the lunch break, I penned a few lines to FIH media officer asking him to clarify his stand.

The senior lawyer then took full day of the Apex Court to make his point, and he kind of succeeded, in my opinion.

I kept asking myself on how to go about reporting the day's proceedings while driving back to office.

To my pleasant surprise, as I just reached my office, I received a media release from the FIH "strongly refuting the allegations of allowing its officials to have any conflict of interest".

"Under the FIH policy, all members of staff and the Executive Board and any committee or body appointed by the FIH are required to avoid any actual or potential conflict of interest between their personal and official interests and activities," the FIH statement stated.

Now that Srinivasan's defence had fallen flat, it was time to call his counsel for his views. And Sibal was again at his best, defending his arguments.

"We wanted the BCCI also to have rules and regulations with respect to conflict of interest. There was no criticism of the FIH at any point and we just cited their policy on conflict issue and we apparently cited the policy of FIH and expressed a desire that BCCI should also draft a policy like this. Unfortunately, BCCI doesn't have such a policy."

I didn't understand even a word of what Srinivasan's lawyer was trying to say, with an 'instruction' to not mention his name.

But I was certain enough at this stage that "case had again turned on its head".