When the Mudgal panel was given more time to enable it to file final report, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for BCCI president Mr. Srinivasan, who is currently the International Cricket Council Chairman, objected to the extension, arguing that it affected the valuable rights of his client and the BCCI.
The same hearing had seen the court refuse Mr. Srinivasan permission to participate in a Board meeting scheduled for September 30. However, the BCCI’s Annual General Meeting (AGM) was postponed to November 20. The Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) challenged the postponement in court, saying it was done against the BCCI’s own constitution. The CAB had alleged that the AGM was postponed to facilitate Mr. Srinivasan’s return. But the Supreme Court advised the CAB to wait for the probe committee report.
“We are bothered about the allegations of spot-fixing and betting, and not about the AGM. If the probe committee exonerates Mr. Srinivasan, he can contest, but if elections are held now he will be disqualified. Your [the CAB’s] real purpose of filing this petition is to prevent Mr. Srinivasan from contesting,” the Bench had observed.
The Supreme Court in May 2014 appointed Justice Mudgal to further probe allegations against Mr. Srinivasan, his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra of Rajasthan Royals. It had sought a report by the end of August.
But a Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and Ibrahim Kalifulla had called for further probe, observing that “the allegations against the 13 persons, including Mr. Srinivasan, mentioned in the report submitted in the sealed cover should be investigated by the Justice Mudgal Committee and the team of investigators, because if a new probe committee is entrusted to inquire into the allegations, there is likelihood of the allegations being leaked to the public and such leakage will damage the reputation of the 13 persons beyond repair.”
