Lalit Modi hearing concludes, Bombay HC verdict today

Whether or not the disciplinary committee appointed by the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) will proceed against Lalit Modi will be decided by the Bombay high court on Thursday.
Contesting the appointment of Chirayu Amin, Arun Jaitley and Jyotiraditya Scindia as the members of the committee, Modi’s counsel Virag Tulzapurkar told the court on Wednesday that Board of Control for Cricket in India secretary N Srinivasan’s decision to refer Modi’s case to the disciplinary committee was “actuated by bias” as his client had earlier alleged that Srinivasan appointed umpires from Tamil Nadu for the benefit of his own team. Srinivasan is the owner of Chennai Super Kings.

The suspended chairman of the Indian Premier League had moved the high court last week against the BCCI. In the petition filed on his behalf by his constituted attorney Mehmood Abdi, Modi has urged the court to quash the order of suspension and the disciplinary action initiated against him by the board. Modi has also asked the court to appoint an independent person or panel to assess Modi’s replies against the three show cause notices issued to him by BCCI alleging several irregularities in the T20 League.

Justices Marlapalle and Roshan Dalvi made it clear that the court
will not deal with the allegations but only determine whether the disciplinary committee is needed to bereconstituted.

To emphasise the bias in the mind of the committee members, Tulzapurkar pointed out that the BCCI terminated the contract with WSG for the telecast rights of the next IPL even before the alleged ‘fraud’ in the form of Rs80 crore facilitation fee in the deal has been established. It was one of the main charges against Modi. “What was the tearing hurry to terminate the contract?” Tulzapurkar asked.

Arguing for the BCCI, senior advocate A Sundaram told the court that the decision to initiate the inquiry against Modi was taken by the Board and Modi, as its member, knew the rules and regulations. The entire general body had decided that the matter should be referred to the disciplinary committee. “Can all members of the governing council be biased?” Sundaram argued. He added that Modi had alleged “institutional bias” and not personal bias. “If that is allowed, we can put an end to all inquiries under various statutes,” Sundaram contended.

Representing BCCI president Shashank Manohar, who has recused himself from the disciplinary committee, senior counsel Iqbal Chagla said Modi could not have moved the high court through his constituted attorney Mehmood Abdi. “The power of attorney does not authorise this gentleman,” Chagla said. Chagla added that the allegations of bias levelled by Modi against the disciplinary committee members are ‘fanciful.’ At this stage,

Justice Marlapalle remarked, “Of late it is the game of cricket that has become fanciful.”

Sundaram added that the findings of the disciplinary committee are not final and Modi could move the court if he was aggrieved by the committee’s eventual decision. “We don’t want to spend another three hours listening to this matter again,” justice Marlapalle said. “We have to hear appeals pending since 1989.”

However, Tulzapurkar said that he has come to court at the threshold and wanted the matter to be decided before the committee proceeds against him. “I (Modi) am not averse to the inquiry,” said Tulazapurkar.

On July 3, the BCCI, through a special general meeting (SGM), had constituted a three-member panel to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Modi. The committee is scheduled to meet on July 16 and has summoned Modi to appear before them.