Expressing displeasure over BCCI president in-exile N Srinivasan chairing a recent working committee meeting in Chennai...
Expressing displeasure over BCCI president in-exile N Srinivasan chairing a recent working committee meeting in Chennai, the Supreme Court on Monday asked him how he continued to hold the post when he was not qualified to contest the election.
“How could he ignore that if he is not qualified to contest the election (for the post of president), how could he be qualified to hold the post?” a Bench headed by Justice T S Thakur asked senior counsel Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Srinivasan, in a contempt petition filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar.
Referring to its January 22 order holding that Srinivasan, being head of BCCI and the owner of the Chennai Super Kings, was in a conflict of interest situation, the Bench observed that Srinivasan’s position was vulnerable and he should have acted accordingly, even if he was very passionate about the sport.
“Having said that it makes him very vulnerable… we are not very happy about it,” Justice Thakur said, adding “with people like you advising him, people must have realised the implication of our order,” Justice Thakur told Sibal.
Earlier in January, the SC had barred Srinivasan from contesting any BCCI election on the grounds of conflict of interest and set up a committee of judges under a former Chief Justice of India to decide on the punishment in the IPL scam that can threaten the future of Chennai Super Kings (CSK) and Rajasthan Royals (RR).
The bench also posted the matter for hearing on Friday after Sibal took time to seek instructions from Srinivasan.
Sibal argued that Srinivasan had complied with the apex copurt’s order and that there was no prohibition to prevent him from functioning as the BCCI president.
Justifying Srinivasan’s position, Sibal said, “He is so much in love with this game, he is willing to give up everything for the game” and “we should not get the feeling that he’s being persecuted”.
Cricket Association of Bihar’s senior counsel Nalini Chidambaram argued that an earlier order of the apex court appointing Shivlal Yadav to perform the functions of the BCCI president did not prescribe an outer time limit and that Yadav should have continued to perform the president’s functions.
She also argued that his chairing the meeting was contrary to the apex court ruling disqualifying him from participating in any board meetings.
CAB had filed a contempt against Srinivasan and other BCCI officials for holding the board meeting in alleged violation of court directives.
The plea cited media reports to claim that Srinivasan had chaired the meeting despite facing disqualification due to a January 22 judgement.
The petition had said, “If this Court held Srinivasan disqualified from contesting for the post of President, BCCI until he has any commercial interest in the events of BCCI (then) it goes without saying that he is disqualified as on date to hold the post of President BCCI or be involved in working of BCCI as per the order of this court dated January, 22 2015.”
The CAB also contended that Srinivasan continued to have commercial interest in the IPL matches of BCCI and hence he was disqualified from holding the post of BCCI President and President of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association.