SC allows BCCI to put off AGM and board elections till January 31, 2015

N Srinivasan

New Delhi, Dec 10 – The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, allowed the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to postpone its Annual General Meeting (AGM) and elections of the office-bearers till Jan 31, 2015, as the hearing into the allegations of betting and conflict of interest is continuing.

The apex court bench headed by Justice T.S Thakur allowed the postponement of the AGM and the election of the office-bearers as it appeared that the hearing into the matter may not conclude before December 17 when the meeting is scheduled to be held.

Earlier, N Srinivasan told the court that if he is re-elected, he would stay away from the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council till a proposed committee decides on the larger question of conflict of interest.

Responding to the court on Tuesday, senior counsel Kapil Sibal told a bench of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla that Srinivasan would stay away from the governing council and its activities and also from the BCCI meetings related to the IPL.

Sibal said: "Mr N. Srinivasan further undertakes that if he is elected as president of BCCI, till the (proposed) committee suggests the procedure to deal with the issue of conflict of interest, he will not attend any IPL governing council meeting or any other IPL related discussion in any meeting of working committee or general body meeting of the BCCI."

This the court was told in a note on the scope of reference of the committee to be appointed by the apex court or the BCCI into the question of conflict of interest. The note said the committee could suggest "the sanctions to be imposed, in accordance with the applicable IPL rules on person prima facie found to be involved in the act of backing by the Mudgal Committee".

The committee may also determine the liability of the franchisees for the act of backing by their "team officials and to suggest the consequential sanctions that can be imposed on them in accordance with the IPL rules".

The note said that another term of reference for the proposed committee would be to "consider and suggest a mechanism to identify the potential conflict of interest in the BCCI and to suggest the procedure to be adopted for dealing with situations of potential conflict of interest".

Sibal said this during the hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB), which has sought to oust Srinivasan as BCCI president right from the very beginning due to his multiple roles.

The PIL is also seeking the cancellation of IPL franchisee CSK on the ground of Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan's alleged involvement in betting.

Opposing the plea by the CAB seeking the cancellation of CSK, Sibal told the court that under the board’s anti-corruption code, a person may be suspended for a minimum of two years or for a maximum of five years.

Brushing aside Sibal’s defence as “technical”, Justice Kalifulla asked Sibal to read other provisions of the anti-corruption code.

“You are covered by the anti-corruption code of the BCCI. You can’t say that if you are involved in betting but you are not nationally accredited (as a player, coach, umpire or others) then you are not covered by the anti-corruption code of the BCCI or outside it,” Justice Kalifulla said.

Saying that different people will be covered by different regulations, Sibal said, “There is a finding in my favour. If the court wants to further look into it that is a different matter. At the moment, there is a finding in my favour (by Mudgal Committee).”

Defending BCCI’s rules regarding conflict of interest, C.A Sundaram, appearing for the board, told the court the “question is while discharging function under these rules whether there was a malafide or unfair act. He said that if there was no malafide or unfair action in the discharge of its functions then court should not intervene.”

The court was also apparently displeased with India Cements Limited’s counsel Mahesh Jethmalani’s submission that Meiyappan might be betting from his home and hence could not be held responsible for his conduct at his home.

“Then you may have to see that such people are not around you,” Justice Thakur told Jethmalani, clearly unimpressed by the submission.