| Friday , November 28 , 2014 |
Questions for Srinivasan | |
| R. BALAJI | |
New Delhi, Nov. 27: The Supreme Court today asked whether Narayanswamy Srinivasan could “on principle” seek re-election as Indian cricket chief and whether all board members “facing charges” should “stand aside” and “fresh blood be inducted” to handle the fixing and betting scandal. It also sought details of Srinivasan’s family shareholdings in India Cements Limited, of which he is managing director and which is associated with IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings (CSK), to ascertain the extent of his control over the team and thus any “conflict of interest”. “We are looking at the real ownership of CSK,” the court said at one point. In this context, it asked how Tamil Nadu Cricket Association honorary secretary Kasi Viswanathan could go on being paid by India Cements as an employee while acting as Srinivasan’s special secretary in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). “The point of distinction between the BCCI and the ICL (India Cements) is vanishing. There is no difference in ICL and the team officials. The question (is), is there not a conflict of interest?” the bench of Justices T.S. Thakur and Ibrahim Kalifulla asked. Srinivasan, the world cricket boss, continues to call the shots in the domestic board despite being effectively suspended. The Mukul Mudgal panel that probed the betting and fixing allegations has accused him of knowing about at least one “violation” by a player but not acting, while clearing him of match-fixing or scuttling investigations. In an observation, the court asked the board to take “a clear stand”, cited the board’s powers under the franchise agreement “to take a decision in 10 days”, and said it would be watching. Excerpts from the give-and-take between the court and board counsel C.A. Sundaram during the three-and- a-half-hour proceedings, during which Srinivasan’s lawyer Kapil Sibal hardly spoke while Harish Salve and Nalini Chidambaram appeared for the petitioner, Cricket Association of Bihar: Nalini: Mr Srinivasan is as guilty as (son-in-law and Super Kings official) Gurunath Meiyappan (accused by Mudgal of involvement in betting), and as per BCCI rules and anti-corruption code he should be prevented from contesting elections and CSK (should be) suspended. (Court asks how the board can punish those involved in fixing or betting.) Sundaram: The BCCI is competent to suspend, terminate and expel a member, reprimand or impose a fine. Court: In such a case, who will take action? Can we leave it to the same board whose members are facing charges? Let all these people stand aside. How can the same board take action when they are facing charges as per the (Mudgal) panel’s report? Let fresh blood be inducted into the board…. The term of the present board has ended and still the same board will take action — it is not a healthy sign. Sundaram: Your Lordships, let the court decide what we should do. Court (disagreeing): There has to be proper elections. If we were to do (it) ourselves — take action — we will be touching the jurisdiction of the board. But there must be a board, let the board take the decision. We don’t want the same board, which is continuing under fortuitous circumstances. Let there be an external committee on the action to be taken. (Sundaram is non-committal on whether Srinivasan is willing to opt out of any fresh election.) Sundaram: The board can appoint a disciplinary committee. Court: Why another committee, let Mudgal committee decide (does not elaborate). Court (to Nalini): The question before us is that, looking at the findings of the Mudgal panel and anti-corruption code, whether on principle he (Srinivasan) cannot contest in the light of the findings. What is the jurisdictional principle? (Nalini doesn’t give a specific answer.) Salve: Under board rules, an office-bearer can be suspended for his entire lifetime for misconduct. Court: What is more valuable, (board) office or franchise? If Srinivasan’s CSK goes out, will there be any conflict of interest? Salve: There should be a personal ban on Srinivasan from holding any post in the board. ******* (Court asks Sundaram on what basis Viswanathan was appointed special secretary to Srinivasan.) Sundaram: It was a board working committee decision. Court: This person (Viswanathan) is already an employee in his (Srinivasan’s) own company. Mr Viswanathan works for BCCI but (is) paid by ICL. Does it make good sense to pay him and make him work for someone else? (Sarcastically) On the one hand, you (Srinivasan) say (you) have 00.1 per cent equity in the ICL. The very same company owns the team. You say, ‘I am only a nominal head, I have no equity’. Then why should your company pay somebody who is assisting somebody (else)? Sundaram: Merely a team or the board having an administrator from a company does not amount to a conflict of interest. Court: What is the shareholding of Mr Srinivasan and his family members in India Cements? Sundaram: Less than four per cent, including the shares of his wife and daughter. Court: So, with four per cent you are controlling the team? You are the MD for how many years? When did you (India Cements) go public? We would like this to be stated clearly. (Sundaram says he would submit the details but does not specify when.) Court: The distinction between ICL and Mr Srinivasan is going towards a vanishing point. How much investment (has been) made by ICL (in Super Kings)? Sundaram: About Rs 400 crore. Court: For any company to make an investment of Rs 400 crore, it has to be approved by the board. Was it made on the basis of a resolution of the board? Who are the board members — we would like to know the composition. (Sundaram says there are a number of members, including companies such as Reliance Industries.) Court: India Cements, when it spends Rs 400 crore, who are the people who take the decision? Mr Srinivasan is the managing director; his wife and daughter are directors. His daughter’s husband is Mr Meiyappan. Does it not amount to a conflict of interest? Please produce a copy of the board’s resolution…. We are looking at the real ownership of CSK — who are the people who have taken the decision? Gurunath is not the owner; so who is the ultimate controller? It is a vague term. Your captain was Mr Dhoni; so Dhoni is the one who will take the cricketing decisions as to who are to be in the team. Who will pick the captain, coaches? Are they appointed in a transparent method? (The) captain in this case (Dhoni) is also the vice-president of the company (India Cements). The company selects the team. The captain, who is part of the selection process, is picked by the company. (Sundaram says there is nothing wrong with such a process; he cites how public sector units and private companies recruit people under the sports quota.) Court: Question is, Mr Srinivasan as president of the BCCI has a duty to see the team is free from match-fixing, spot-fixing or betting. It was his duty. But as owner of the team his intention was that his team should be in the reckoning. It is time for you (the board) to take a clear stand. As per the franchise agreement, the BCCI is competent to take a decision in 10 days. The (Mudgal) findings have come out. There are two aspects. What happens to the team and what happens to Mr Srinivasan, Mr Meiyappan and Mr Raj Kundra (Rajasthan Royals co-owner, accused by Mudgal of betting or at least “standing guarantee for his punter friends”). We will certainly look into it as to what action you take. You should take action. We will give you the opportunity. Take a decision. We will know what is brewing in the BCCI and put an end to the controversy. The arguments will resume on Monday. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1141128/jsp/frontpage/story_19098051.jsp#.VHfif9KUeSo |
