New Delhi, Dec 10:
Still grappling with the IPL scam case, the Supreme Court today deferred BCCI President’s election till the end of January even as the cricket board opposed constitution of an external high-powered committee to propose punishment on the Mudgal Committee findings.
A bench headed by Justice T S Thakur also posed questions like should the actions of Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra lead to cancellation of Chennai Super Kings (CSK) Rajasthan Royals (RR) teams.
“We are still in the process of hearing which will take some time to conclude,” the Bench observed at the end of yet another day-long hearing directing postponement of the BCCI’s December 17 Annual General Meeting (AGM) for office bearers’ election till January 31, 2015.
The decisions the Bench, also comprising Justice F M I Kalifulla said, has to give will be on several issues arising out of IPL 6 betting and spot fixing, including the conflict of interest involving N Srinivasan, BCCI President in exile, will take more time.
It passed the order after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Srinivasan, said that since the hearing was not likely to complete before December 17, the election for office bearers has to be postponed, a point with which it agreed.
The BCCI counsel said the Board will have to issue notice of three weeks for holding the election. Till now the AGM has been postponed thrice from September 26 to November 20 and then to December 17 and now till Janaury 31, 2015.
Opposing the setting up of a high-powered committee to
look into the matter regarding Srinivasan’s conflict of interest and punishment to be meted out on the basis of Mudgal committee report,BCCI counsel C A Sundaram said that it would affect its autonomy and any decision in this regard, if required, must be decided by the governing body of the Board.
Today’a hearing saw for the first time Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, who has been indicted by Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee for betting in the IPL, taking the opportunity to explain his stand.
He maintained that he would not like to disclose whether he was a team official of CSK or not as any disclosure would prejudice him in the trial court where he is facing a betting case.
“I have a right to silence,” his counsel Siddharth Luthra said while maintaining that Meiyappan is facing trial and that the issue whether he is a CSK official will arise there.
After brief submissions by his counsel, the bench observed that “You have taken this stand after BCCI and India Cements Ltd, the owners of CSK, have accepted that you are a team official. Still you want to stay non-committal.”
Luthra questioned the Mudgal Committee over relying on the FIR lodged by the Mumbai Police and statement of witnesses recorded by the police during probe under section 161 of CrPC indicting Meiyappan for betting.
“Reliance on untested material (by Mudgal Committee) would prejudice me and my trial would become fruitless,” he said.
Meiyappan’s refusal to disclose whether he was a team
official or not came after the bench made several remarks based on the findings of the Mudgal Committee report.
“We are not forcing you to say whether you are a team official or not. However, the Mudgal Committee in its report said you are team official and you are now suspended.
“If you are not a team official then suspension does not matter. If you are not a team official your suspension is meaningless. You still want to enter the stadium but in what capacity,” the Bench asked.
The bench then observed “are you not prevented from entering the stadium. Can you buy ticket and get inside the stadium. Your stake is you want to enter the stadium”.
When Rajasthan Royals, another IPL team whose stake holder Raj Kundra has also been accused of betting, was making submissions, the bench observed “Your position is somewhat similar to India Cements Ltd. There Meiyappan, who is a team official, is in betting and here Raj Kundra, who is an official of Rajasthan Royals, is also in betting”.
RR’s counsel Ashok Desai also questioned the findings of Mudgal Committee saying no notice was issued to the franchise in the matter.
He submitted that Kundra was not a share owner in the franchise and 11 per cent share was owned by his family members.
Kundra’s counsel Shekhar Naphade also raised objections over his indictment saying that the Mudgal Committee did not follow the BCCI rules. Nor did it follow the principles of natural justice and arrived at the conclusion without issuing notice to his client, he contended. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel