On a day when the Supreme Court reserved its order on the panel to investigate the allegations against “13 very important personalities” in the IPL betting and fixing case, The Hindu caught up with some key players.
Aryama Sundaram, senior counsel for BCCI: The apex court felt that further investigation was needed in the case against the Board in the matter. The probe panel itself has said that a lot of these allegations needed to be verified and tested.
The court will decide on the nature and the composition of the panel and the kind of help it will receive from the other agencies.
The court has only said (N. Srinivasan) cannot discharge his duties as the BCCI president till the matter is decided. It has no problems with his taking part in the ICC meetings.
Nalini Chidambaram, senior counsel for the petitioner, Cricket Association of Bihar: The Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee will have four months to submit the report. After it is submitted, the matter will be heard in September.
When Aryama Sundaram argued that the only allegation against N. Srinivasan was he failed to act on the complaint made against the players, Justice Patnaik remarked: ‘The contents of the sealed cover are not what you think they are.’
The judges said if a different probe panel was appointed, the contents of the sealed envelope would have to be revealed, and then confidentiality wouldn’t be maintained.
Bharat Raman, senior counsel for India Cements and Chennai Super Kings: Most importantly, the Supreme Court has continued to allow Srinivasan to attend ICC meetings.
Certain contents of the Mudgal Committee report have been challenged by CSK and Rajasthan Royals. Significantly, the Court has said the probe panel’s enquiry would include the investigation into the sealed cover matter. When the main case comes up for hearing again in August [BCCI has requested a hearing in August], we will question the very eligibility and the legality of the PIL.
We are extremely confident.
Ravi Sawant, vice-president, BCCI: We should have faith in the probe panel by the Supreme Court. You cannot go against what the apex court says, can you?
From the beginning, the court has maintained this stance that it is concerned only about (Srinivasan’s) role in the BCCI. It has said nothing about the ICC.
The matter has already been debated upon by the members in the Board. What more can be discussed in another emergency meeting of the BCCI to discuss the issue? I have not heard of any such meeting in the coming days.
Aditya Verma, secretary, CAB: I am very happy. Their next course of action will depend on the court’s final order. The International Cricket Council’s constitution clearly says Mr. Srinivasan can go to the ICC only if the BCCI nominates him.
If his action in the BCCI is under question, where is the question of him going to the ICC?