Supreme Court’s advice to N Srinivasan: Don’t bat at both ends

The Supreme Court (SC) suggested on Thursday that Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) secretary N Srinivasan must either contest for the president’s post at the cricketing body’s election or retain his interest in the India Cements-owned Chennai Super Kings, an Indian Premier League (IPL) team. Srinivasan, vice-chairman and managing director of India Cements Ltd, is the de facto owner of Chennai Super Kings.

The court was hearing a petition filed by former BCCI president AC Muthiah alleging conflict of interest by Srinivasan because of his dual role. “It shouldn’t cause prejudice to you (Srinivasan) if you continue with M/S India Cements and Chennai Super Kings and not hobnob with the BCCI,” a bench of justices JM Panchal and Gyan Sudha Mishra said, while challenging an interim order passed by the Madras high court.

The high court refused to interfere with a BCCI regulation, which made an exclusion of events like the IPL or Champions League, for administrators to have, directly or indirectly, any commercial interest in the matches or events.  

Maintaining that its observation should not be construed as a direction, the bench asked Srinivasan’s counsel Mukul Rohatgi to take instructions from his client. Justice Mishra said the “conflict of interest is the core issue and the nagging question is can you continue in a dual position”. Rohatgi said Srinivasan and India Cements were two different identities and must not be merged to establish conflict of interest.

Muthiah’s counsel Nalini Chidambaram said the suit was filed only because no action was taken after her client filed a complaint. Justice Sudha told BCCI counsel and attorney general Goolam E Vahanvati that had the BCCI acted on the complaint, there wouldn’t have been a problem.

“But you failed to act. Your duty is to act as per your own rule. You [BCCI] can’t say that we are a private body and we will not answer the complaint,” the SC observed. “Why should the court be burdened with the suit?”

In his defence, Vahanvati said the BCCI is an autonomous private body and not an instrument of the state. Muthiah could neither file a suit nor a writ petition as he did not meet the requirements. He has also rejected the contention that under BCCI regulations, Muthiah, being a former president, was also its administrator.