‘High Court failed to consider Srinivasan’s clout in influencing fresh probe’

Supreme Court issues notice to BCCI, India Cements on SLP

Updated - November 16, 2021 09:21 pm IST

Published - August 30, 2013 05:07 pm IST - New Delhi

Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the BCCI, N. Srinivasan, his company India Cements which owns IPL team Chennai Super Kings, and Rajasthan Royals on a plea challenging Bombay High court order refusing to appoint a fresh committee to probe IPL spot fixing scam. File photo

Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the BCCI, N. Srinivasan, his company India Cements which owns IPL team Chennai Super Kings, and Rajasthan Royals on a plea challenging Bombay High court order refusing to appoint a fresh committee to probe IPL spot fixing scam. File photo

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Board of Control for Cricket in India, its president N. Srinivasan, India Cements and Rajasthan Royals on a special leave petition filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar challenging the Bombay High Court judgment, which quashed the two-member panel that probed the allegations of spot-fixing and betting in the Indian Premier League season VI.

Earlier, senior counsel Aryama Sundaram, appearing for the Board, opposed issuance of notice contending that in the BCCI appeal the main contention was the petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition. If the appeal was allowed, there would be no need for hearing the cross-appeal from the CAB.

However, Harish Salve, appearing for the CAB represented by its secretary Aditya P. Verma, said: “Our SLP was for a limited extent that the High Court, while quashing the probe panel, did not grant the consequential relief of constituting a fresh panel to conduct an enquiry.”

A Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and J.S. Khehar posted both SLPs for final hearing on September 11. The Bench, while issuing notice on August 7 on the BCCI’s appeal, had declined to stay the High Court verdict.

In its SLP, the CAB said: “The High Court failed to appreciate [the fact] that even though Mr. Srinivasan is not the de jure president of the BCCI, since he stepped aside pending a report of the probe commission, he is the de facto president and going by the theory of preponderance of probabilities, even if a fresh probe commission is constituted, his influence over the selection of its members and investigation cannot be ruled out.”

The SLP pointed out that the High Court had recorded in its judgment that the duty officer received secret information that certain members of the underworld were involved in fixing the then ongoing IPL matches with the active participation of some unidentified conduits based in Delhi who were contacting IPL cricketers offering very high prices with a view to stage-managing some matches for making windfall gains through other bookies, who facilitated illegal gambling.

This extract from the judgment was to emphasise that the allegations had great ramifications for the security of the nation. “In such circumstances, the limited objective of the [Justice Jayarama Chouta] probe commission and the restricted terms of reference with the sole objective of protecting the private interest of Mr. Srinivasan do not justify permitting the BCCI to decide on the further course of action as the BCCI deems fit,” the SLP said.

The fact that the two-member commission gave Mr. Srinivasan a clean chit as reported in the media hearing reinforced the petitioner’s apprehension that but for the High Court’s intervention the allegations of betting and spot-fixing would have been swept under the carpet even without a credible report from the probe commission, the SLP said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.