The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB), challenging the two amendments carried out by the Board of Control for Cricket for India (BCCI), in its rules and regulations which they claimed indirectly facilitated the re-appointment of its president in abeyance N Srinivasan.
A division bench of Justice Anoop Mohta and Justice NM Jamdar dismissed the PIL noting that "The amendments cannot be tested by the petitioner on the basis of assumption and presumptions and with no material placed on record; no case is made out to interfere in the amendments."
The PIL had challenged amendment to clause 15, whereby rules concerning zone wise rotational policy of nominating board president were revised. The petition alleges the changes were made to facilitate re-election of Srinivasan.
It also challenged the BCCI's amendment of regulation 6.2.4, which says that except Indian Premier League (IPL) and Champions League Twenty20, no administrator, officer, player or umpire shall have any direct or indirect commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the board. It was only after this amendment that Srinivasan, who is owner of India Cements, became eligible to own Chennai Super Kings (CSK).
Appearing for CAB, counsels Nalini Chidambaram and Birendra Saraf, argued, "The amendments were brought in to benefit Srinivasan, the amendments were carried out after a unanimous decision of the BCCI committee but subsequent events like the IPL match-fixing scandal, in which Srinivasan's son-in-law is an accused highlights the conflicts of interest."
They also argued that even though the BCCI is bound by its objects framed and the rules and regulations, the possibility of having a direct impact on the selection of players for the Indian team cannot be ruled out, if any member has a commercial vested interest.
Counsel Iqbal Chagla appearing for BCCI, opposed the PIL on grounds of maintainability stating that the petitioner was not a member of BCCI and thus no third party can oppose to its rules and regulations. It was also argued that this could be a proxy litigation.
The court while dismissing the arguments of CAB noted that "petitioner (CAB) is not even a member of BCCI; the averments in the PIL must be on the basis of information gathered through various sources. It is difficult to accept the challenge mere allegation cannot be ground to raise doubt on the unanimous decision."
){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}