For far too long, an impression had gained ground that the Indian cricket board is but the fiefdom of a few individuals. The Indian Premier League case in the Supreme Court garnered attention among the public mainly in the light of the possible consequences it could have for its president-in-exile and International Cricket Council chairman, N. Srinivasan. The Court has now dealt with his conflict of interest issue firmly, barring him and others with an interest in IPL teams from contesting elections in the Board of Control for Cricket in India. However, it has declined to hold him guilty of the charge of wrongdoing and rejected the charge that he tried to cover up the betting charges against his son-in-law and Chennai Super Kings team official Gurunath Meiyappan. It rejects the position of the BCCI that there is nothing wrong in allowing its office-bearers to have a commercial interest in events such as the IPL that are organised for commercial purposes, unlike representative cricket. By striking down the amendment that enabled such conflicts of interest, and mandating an independent committee to streamline the Board’s functioning, the Court has done the groundwork for removing some of the malaises afflicting sports administration in India. It marks the beginning of what ought to be a long process of cleaning up a game that has an enormous following in the country, but is also struggling to preserve its purity in an era of unbridled commercialism. It is also an affirmation of the Mukul Mudgal committee’s findings.
The most welcome feature is that the verdict addresses the BCCI’s credibility deficit in more ways than one. First, it bars an office-bearer from holding a commercial interest in events organised by it; or, conversely, it bars those with such an interest from contesting for elective office. Second, it places the interests of the game, especially its reputation among its fans and its institutional integrity, at the heart of cricket administration, which will now be treated as a public function, even though the BCCI is a private body. And thirdly, it has taken the disciplinary jurisdiction regarding individuals and teams found guilty of wrongdoing in the betting scandal of the IPL’s 2013 edition out of the BCCI’s hands and vested it in a committee of three eminent former judges. Finally, the same committee, comprising a former Chief Justice of India and two others formerly with the Supreme Court, will suggest reforms and changes in the rules and regulations. In essence, the Court has sought to emancipate cricket administration from the whims of individuals and impose much-needed restraints on overweening ambition, non-transparent practices, and the cover-up of unsavoury developments.
