N Srinivasan © PTI
Mar 25, 2014
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday said that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president N Srinivasan should step down from his post to ensure a fair probe in the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2013 spot-fixing and betting scandal.
BCCI’s lawyer was told by the Supreme Court that Srinivasan will have to step down in case the board intends to clean the game. The court added that if in case Srinivasan doesn’t step down, it will be forced to make a verdict in the case.
“In our opinion, Srinivasan has to step down for a fair investigation into the allegation of betting,” said Justice AK Patnaik in the course of the hearing on the report of Justice Mudgal that went into the allegations of betting and spot fixing in the IPL.
Full coverage of Supreme Court hearing on IPL 2013 spot-fixing and betting scandal
As senior counsel CA Sundaram sought to defend the action by the BCCI, Justice Patnaik said: “We will show the papers. You see it and tell us as a counsel about your opinion and not as a paid counsel for Srinivasan.”
At one stage, comparing the two reports – one by an earlier enquiry committee comprising two retired judges of the Madras High Court and the other by Justice Mudgal appointed by the apex court, Justice Patnaik asked: “Can we say that the probe report was managed and if we say so, then what will be the consequences.”
The Supreme Court also adjourned the hearing till Thursday, March 27 on the issue. The original date for hearing was scheduled for March 7, but the court then adjourned it to March 25.
The various issues that are before the Supreme Court include the fate of the Chennai Super Kings. The report has established Gurunath Meiyappan’s wrongdoing and the franchise agreement of the IPL does stipulate that if an owner or franchise is involved in something of that sort, then it can entail expulsion.
However, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had filed an affidavit saying that while Meiyappan was a part of the Super Kings, he wasn’t an owner, hence that provision of the franchise agreement does not apply.
(With inputs from IANS)