Why can't CSK be disqualified, asks Supreme Court

 A series of observations by the Supreme Court on Thursday has raised doubts over the status of N Srinivasan being allowed to seek a third term as BCCI president and of the Chennai Super Kings franchise in the IPL. 

The Supreme Court has asked the BCCI counsel whether the CSK franchise should be disqualified in order to sort out the conflict of interest issues pertaining to the 2013 IPL corruption case. In the latest hearing of the case, on Thursday morning, the Supreme Court special bench of Justice T S Thakur and F M Kalifullah also told counsel appearing for the BCCI and N Srinivasan that the BCCI annual general meeting scheduled for December 17 should go ahead but by 'standing aside' the individual included in the investigation of the IPL corruption case.

The court said the difference between Srinivasan's duty as president of the BCCI and his interest as an owner of an IPL team is "obvious". The court asked, "If there are so many anomalies, why can't the BCCI act according its rules and disqualify CSK?" Justice Thakur asked, "What is more valuable to Mr Srinivasan? Is it his office or his team?" The court also said that the "dual role" of MS Dhoni as the captain of CSK and vice president of India Cements is a matter of "concern."

The court said that BCCI must put an end to all its controversies and move to conduct the election because "the life of the BCCI board is over", the court said. The Board taking any decision around the findings of the Mudgal probe, the court said, "must be a board which is legitimately in place and not a board which exists due to fortuitous circumstances."

Justice Thakur opened the hearings this morning, and said, that the distinction between Srinivasan and India Cements "is getting to a vanishing point." Srinivasan's counsel was asked several details about India Cements, the owners of CSK. The court wanted to know who the real owners of India Cements were, who formed its board and whose decision it was to invest Rs 400 crore (approximately $100 million at the time) in the CSK franchise as well as information about the shareholding pattern in both CSK and India Cements, with particular reference to Srinivasan and his members of his family.

 The bench asked Srinivasan's counsel Kapil Sibal about whether it was India Cements who made decisions on the team's captain and coach. "Is the company selecting the team?... If Gurunath Meiyappan is not the real owner, then who is the ultimate controller [of India Cements and CSK] we wish to learn?"

The BCCI counsel C A Sundaram was asked by the court as to what would be done if the court asked to take a decision, at which point Sundaram replied that he would take instructions from the BCCI and hoped that a decision pertaining to the IPL case with regard to CSK and Meiyappan, within ten days. Thakur then said, it was only at that point that the court would, " know what is brewing within the BCCI."

The BCCI counsel then suggested to the court that the board could set up a disciplinary committee to hand out punishments to individuals found guilty in the Mudgal committee report. The bench said that for a disciplinary committee to be completely "above bias" and "legally valid," a new Board will have to be constituted following a fresh round of elections in which the parties involved in the IPL case would necessarily, not be able to contest.

For the first time since any legal proceedings began around the 2013 IPL corruption case, the BCCI accepted that Gurunath Meiyappan, son in law of Srinivasan, was a "team official" for CSK.

Counsel for Raj Kundra, co-owner of the Rajasthan Royals and one of four "non-playing" individual indicted by the Mudgal panel, informed the court that while he had been "suspended" by the BCCI in 2013, he is yet to receive a written notice of the same.

A court observation is not binding but it does indicate the court's line of thinking in a case. The observation gives the party in question a chance to take the steps being advised.

Following three and a half hours of discussion before the bench, Harish Salve, appearing for the litigant Cricket Association of Bihar concluded his arguments today. The next hearing in the case will be held on Monday, December 1.