Leaving him on a sticky wicket, the Supreme Court on Monday said it is not “too happy” with India Cements Ltd Vice-Chairman and Managing Director N. Srinivasan for chairing a meeting of the Working Committee of the Board of Cricket Control of India on February 8, 2015, despite a January 22 judgment finding him liable for conflict of interest.
A Bench of Justices T.S. Thakur and F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla said Mr. Srinivasan's move has made him “vulnerable”. The meeting had fixed March 2 as the date of BCCI elections.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by Cricket Association of Bihar, represented by senior advocate Nalini Chidambaram, alleging that Mr. Srinivasan and BCCI officials acted in “gross contempt” of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court on January 22 held Mr. Srinivasan liable for conflict of interest but cleared him of any cover-up in the IPL betting and spot-fixing scandal.
The apex court had struck down an amendment to Rule 6.2.4 which allowed cricket administrators to have commercial interests. It further barred persons with commercial interests in BCCI events, including Mr. Srinivasan, from contesting in elections until they had shed their financial stakes or were cleared by a Supreme Court-committee led by former Chief Justice of Inda R.M. Lodha, “whichever is later”.
At the start of the court hearing, Ms. Chidambaram submitted that the February 8 meeting was held in “open defiance” of the court verdict.
“The Amendment to rule 6.2.4 was struck down. This barred him from functioning as a cricket administrator not only in the future but also in praesentia. A person guilty of conflict of interest cannot hold any post of cricket administrator,” Ms. Chidambaram submitted.
Justice Thakur, speaking for the Bench, expressed disappointment at Mr. Srinivasan failure to understand the “essence” of the January 22 judgment.
“He should not have done this (presided in the February 8 meeting). This makes him vulnerable... He should not have done this,” Justice Thakur repeatedly observed.
Turning to senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mr. Srinivasan, Justice Thakur orally observed, “with people like you advising him, Mr. Sibal... What was the need for him to do this? We are not too happy with what he did”.
To this, Mr. Sibal justified that his client “may be legally vulnerable, but there is a body of people who have enormous confidence in him. The BCCI is not just about the President. The BCCI has no complaints. Only the election date was fixed”.
Mr. Sibal argued that not a single direction in the January 22 judgment has been violated.
He contended that the judgment only barred him from contesting elections. The February 8 meeting was held in accordance to the prevalent rules and regulations of the BCCI. Mr. Sibal said there was no cause for contempt of court, which meant “willful disobedience of the court's directions”.
"We feel that when you know there is a judgment, you should not have done this... How could you ignore the fact that we found him ineligible to contest. When someone is found ineligible to contest, how can he hold a position as cricket administrator?” Justice Thakur asked.
“He is so much in love with the game... if we had an inkling that Your Lordships did not want it, he would not have done this,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
When the Bench expressed its willingness to issue a contempt notice on Mr. Srinivasan, Mr. Sibal endeavoured to convince the court to give him time till Friday to consult his client.
“It should not be perceived that any attempt is being made here to persecute Mr. Srinivasan,” Mr. Sibal explained.
“No, we do not want this to be a slanging match. This should not be done in an acrimonious note,” Justice Thakur observed, scheduling the case for February 27.
