The former president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, A.C. Muthiah, has moved the Supreme Court against a judgment of the Madras High Court that upheld a BCCI amendment which enabled administrators to be part of the IPL, Champions League and Twenty20.
Prior to the amendment, clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations for Players, Team officials, Umpires and Administrators, said: “No administrator shall have, directly or indirectly any commercial interest in the matches and events conducted by the Board.” But after the amendment the clause said “no administrator shall have directly or indirectly any commercial interest in any of the events of the BCCI excluding IPL, Champions League and Twenty20.”
Mr. Muthiah questioned the continuance of N. Srinivasan as BCCI Secretary after his company became the successful bidder for the Chennai Super Kings of IPL. However, in the general body meeting held on September 26, 2009, an amendment was introduced in the clause. The High Court upheld the amendment and dismissed a suit and the present appeal by Mr. Muthiah is directed against this judgment.
Meanwhile, counsel Hari Shankar has filed a caveat on behalf of Mr. Srinivasan to prevent the court from passing any ex parte order in the SLP.
Mr. Muthiah said the SLP raised important questions of law, viz whether Mr. Srinivasan was disqualified from holding the post of office-bearer in BCCI in as much as he has a direct “conflict of interest” with the BCCI since he has a commercial interest in the Indian Premier League (a separate sub committee unit of BCCI) by virtue of being the Managing Director and also shareholder of India Cements Limited which was a franchisee of Indian Premier League; whether the High Court failed to appreciate that Regulation 6.2.4 of the BCCI as it stood in September, 2008 clearly disqualified him from holding the post of office bearer in BCCI.; whether the amendment carried out to the said Regulation seeking to exclude IPL, Champions League Twenty20 games, when Twenty20 matches have turned out to be most commercial of all events of BCCI , from the purview of Regulation 6.2.4 not only made the said Regulation meaningless and otiose but the amendment was contrary to the original policy of the BCCI, which is a body discharging public functions, to avoid “conflict of interest” among office bearers of BCCI? The SLP sought quashing of the impugned judgment.
