Even as BCCI president in exile N Srinivasan presented before the Supreme Court that he had sought the then board chief's opinion before bidding for an IPL franchise, the court said the onus was on him to prove that there was no conflict of interest involving him in the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scam.
The court also took objection to Srinivasan's counsel — former Union minister Kapil Sibal's repeated mention of Union finance minister Arun Jaitley's name during the arguments saying "he should not attribute to Jaitley unless his name is in the record."
Sibal was attempting to stress that a BCCI committee, set up to investigate the scam, was constituted on the suggestion of Jaitley, who was of the view that the inquiry should be free from BCCI's interference.
Sibal said the issue of Jaitley's view was reflected in the record and later referred to in the minutes of May 28, 2013 working committee meeting to substantiate his submission.
The bench, of justices TS Thakur and FMI Kalifulla, proceeded with the hearing saying "If you mention name, you have to mention the context because he is not represented."
Since the major part of the hearing on Monday was on the issue of conflict of interest involving Srinivasan, the bench said, "We have a different opinion on the conflict of interest issue. You have to lift the veil."
Sibal was arguing that there was no finding either by the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee or the Bombay High Court against him on the conflict of interest issue.
The senior advocate said "even if you lift the veil you will not find anything on conflict of interest and they (rivals) only want him to remove (from BCCI)." Responding to his contentions, the bench said it was up to him to "demonstrate" that there was no conflict of interest as the question has arisen on admitted facts.
Sibal argued that his client was "publicly vilified and held guilty" by the counsel for petitioner Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) Nalini Chidambaram and dismissed the allegations that Srinivasan, who owns India Cements Ltd (ICL), amended the BCCI rules to facilitate that as an administrator (head of the BCCI) and also a member of IPL governing council he could bid for the franchise CSK in the IPL, which is violation of public policy.
Sibal contended that the petitioner's counsel argued "out of context" and said the rule was not amended at his client's instance but by a committee set up by Pawar.
Claiming that Srinivasan had written a letter to Pawar for his opinion before bidding for CSK, Sibal said the petitioner has levelled the allegations which is not there in the petition. Even the Bombay high court, while hearing their plea, had given no finding either on the issue of conflict of interest or that the BCCI office bearer cannot own any team to have commercial interest in the IPL matches.
Sibal also said that more than 100 BCCI office bearers earn money by accepting the assignments like commentator, coach, mentor etc.
Answering court's query whether the BCCI rules allow such things, he mentioned the names of leading cricketers like Sunil Gavaskar, K Srikkanth, Rahul Dravid etc who were allowed to earn money simultaneously from the other assignments.
The bench made it clear that the Mudgal panel report is clear on the issue of conflict of interests against Srinivasan and asked Sibal to demonstrate how it is not there and deferred the hearing for next Monday.
—(With PTI inputs)
){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}
){kind=small}