Court Yorker at CSK, Srini's Reelection Bid

SC tells Board to hold fresh elections, keep those named by Mudgal panel out; new spin to Meiyappan as defence team admits he was CSK official

Published: 28th November 2014 06:08 AM  |   Last Updated: 28th November 2014 08:11 AM   |  A+A-

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt exiled BCCI chief N Srinivasan’s comeback bid a massive blow by instructing the board’s counsel to hold election without the involvement of anyone involved in the IPL spot-fixing and betting scandal.

“Let all the persons involved in controversy step aside and election be conducted for the board and let the new board take a decision. There must be fresh election and fresh blood in the cricketing body that can look into the (Mudgal) report and act”, the court observed.

BCCI.JPGIt also prompted the BCCI to act immediately on the Mudgal report and asked why Chennai Super Kings shouldn’t be scrapped from IPL without further inquiry.  “Now that the report has come we can ask the BCCI to take a decision in 10 days,” the bench said.

It also wanted more details of the ownership of India Cements, whereabouts of the board members and whose decision it was to invest `400 crore in CSK. “We would like to know the composition of the Board members of the company.  We would like to know the share holding of the company and the stake of Srinivasan and his family in the company. Who are the people who took decisions on behalf of the company regarding CSK? We are looking for real owners of the CSK,” the bench asked.

Senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing for the board, tried to defend Srinivasan by saying that Gurunath Meiyappan has no stakes in the company. But the bench retorted, “You are batting for India Cements or BCCI?”

Earlier, Srinivasan and the company had accepted before the court that Meiyappan was a CSK official. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Srinivasan said neither he (Srinivasan) nor CSK captain M S Dhoni had ever given a written or oral statement before the Mudgal Committee that Meiyappan was merely a cricket enthusiast. This could be examined by going through the audio recording of the proceedings, he said.

However, senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the petitioner Cricket Association of Bihar and its secretary Aditya Verma, said Srinivasan in a television interview had described his son-in-law as a cricket enthusiast.

The bench also asked the BCCI as to what decisions it would take against teams and their officials if they are asked to take a decision.

“Why should we take action? You must yourself take the decision. There is no need to be defensive on the issue. We will give you the opportunity. Take a call on the issue. BCCI must put an end to all the controversy,” the bench said.

Sundaram contended that a separate external commission be set up by the court to hand out punishment to people and the teams after hearing them. But the bench pointed out that for a disciplinary committee to be entirely “above bias and legally valid”, a new board will have to be constituted without individuals named in the report. The hearing will resume on Monday.

The Mudgal panel found that Srinivasan was found to have not taken action against a player who violated the code of conduct.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp