It is not possible to reconstitute the disciplinary committee set up to probe the allegations of financial irregularities against the former IPL chairman, Lalit Modi, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
A Bench of Justices J.M. Panchal and Gyan Sudha Misra is hearing Mr. Modi's appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment rejecting his plea for reconstitution of the committee as he apprehended that he would not get a fair report as some of the Board members would be biased against him.
During the hearing, Justice Sudha asked senior counsel C. Aryama Sundaram, appearing for the BCCI, whether the Board could consider reconstituting the committee since the Rules had been diluted with the Board president recusing himself from the committee. She also wanted to know what would be the difficulty if the committee was reconstituted since allegations of bias were made against the members.
Mr. Sundaram said that since the probe was in an advanced stage it was not possible to reconstitute the committee now. As Mr. Modi had expressed lack of confidence in all the members, it would not be possible to appoint outsiders to the committee. Foreign witnesses were summoned to adduce evidence. The committee was only a fact-finding one, he said, and the final decision would be taken only by the Board.
Earlier, senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Mr. Modi, said that those who took decisions against Mr. Modi were part of the committee, so the committee should be reconstituted.
He said the Board's Rule contemplated that the BCCI president should be the chairman of the committee, but president Shashank Manohar had recused himself. The other members, Arun Jaitley, Chirayu Amin and Jyotiraditya Scindya, could not be on the committee as they were biased against Mr. Modi, he added.
Mr. Jethmalani said there would not be any objection if the committee was reconstituted with one or more retired judges of the Supreme Court or the High Court or senior advocates. He maintained that there should be a free and fair inquiry against Mr. Modi as one of the charges was that he had held a proxy stake in a franchise.
BCCI secretary N. Srinivasan had already filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Modi in Chennai as if he had already been found guilty of the charges, he said. The High Court's refusal to consider the plea at the initial stage would result in serious prejudice, and there was no justification for rejecting the reliefs sought.
The arguments will continue on Thursday.
