Question 7
What orders and directions need be passed in the light of the discussions and answers to (the other) questions?
Excerpts from the answersfollow. The headlines are givenby this newspaper and are not part of the judgment
We have held Gurunath Meiyappan (son-in-law of N. Srinivasan) and Raj Kundra (co-owner of the Rajasthan Royals and husband of actress Shilpa Shetty) to be guilty of betting. We have also... held that the misconduct against these two individuals is actionable as per the relevant rules to which we have referred in detail. Not only that, we have held that action under the rules can also be taken against the franchisees concerned. We have noticed that the quantum of sanction/punishment can vary depending upon the gravity of the misconduct of the persons committing the same.
Who should punish?
One of the issues that would fall for determination in the light of these findings would be whether we should impose a suitable punishment ourselves or leave it to the BCCI to do the needful. Having given our anxious consideration to that aspect we are of the view that neither of these two courses would be appropriate. We say so because the power to punish for misconduct vests in the BCCI. We do not consider it proper to clutch at the jurisdiction of the BCCI to impose a suitable punishment. At the same time, we do not think that in a matter like this the award of a suitable punishment to those liable for such punishment can be left to the BCCI.
The trajectory of the present litigation, and the important issues it has raised as also the profile of the individuals who have been indicted, would, in our opinion, demand that the award of punishment for misconduct is left to an independent committee to exercise that power for and on the behalf of BCCI. This would not only remove any apprehension of bias and/or influence one way or the other but also make the entire process objective and transparent especially when we propose to constitute a committee comprising outstanding judicial minds of impeccable honesty.
The other aspect, which needs attention, is the need for a probe into the activities of Sundar Raman. We are of the view that, once we appoint a committee to determine and award punishment, we can, instead of referring the matter back to Mudgal committee, request the proposed new committee to examine the role played by Sundar Raman, if necessary, with the help of the investigating team constituted by us earlier.
Other aspects
The proposed committee can also, in our opinion, be requested to examine and make suitable recommendations on the following aspects:
- Amendments considered necessary to the memorandum of association of the BCCI and the prevalent rules and regulations for streamlining the conduct of elections to different posts/offices in the BCCI including conditions of eligibility and disqualification, if any, for candidates wanting to contest the election for such posts, including the office of the president of the BCCI.
- Amendments to the memorandum of association, and rules and regulation considered necessary to provide a mechanism for resolving conflict of interest should such a conflict arise despite Rule 6.2.4 prohibiting creation or holding of any commercial interest by the administrators, with particular reference to persons, who by virtue of their proficiency in the game of cricket, were to necessarily play some role as coaches, managers, commentators, etc.
- Amendment, if any, to the memorandum of association and the rules and regulations of BCCI to carry out the recommendations of the probe committee headed by Justice (Mukul) Mudgal, subject to such recommendations being found acceptable by the newly-appointed committee.
- Any other recommendation with or without suitable amendment of the relevant rules and regulations, which the committee may consider necessary to make with a view to preventing sporting frauds, conflict of interests, streamlining the working of the BCCI to make it more responsive to the expectations of the public at large and to bring transparency in practices and procedures followed by the BCCI.
Amendment void
In the result, we pass the following order:
Amendment to Rule 6.2.4 whereby the words 'excluding events like IPL or Champions League Twenty 20' were added to the said rule is hereby declared void and ineffective. The judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay in PIL No.107 of 2013 is resultantly set aside and the said writ petition allowed to the extent indicated above.
The panel
- The quantum of punishment to be imposed on Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra as also their respective franchiseeseams/owners of the teams shall be determined by a committee comprising the following:
- Hon'ble Justice R.M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India - chairman.
- Hon'ble Justice Ashok Bhan, former judge, Supreme Court of India - member.
- Hon'ble Justice R.V. Raveendran, former judge, Supreme Court of India - member.
The committee shall, before taking a final view on the quantum of punishment to be awarded, issue notice to all those likely to be affected and provide to them a hearing in the matter. The order passed by the committee shall be final and binding upon the BCCI and the parties concerned, subject to the right of the aggrieved party seeking redress in appropriate judicial proceedings in accordance with law.
- The three-member committee... shall also examine the role of Sundar Raman with or without further investigation, into his activities, and if found guilty, impose a suitable punishment upon him on behalf of the BCCI.
The investigating team constituted by this court under B.B. Mishra (deputy director general of the Narcotics Control Bureau) shall for that purpose be available to the newly-constituted committee to carry out all such investigations as may be considered necessary, with all such powers as were vested in it....
- The three-member committee is also requested to examine and make suitable recommendations to the BCCI for such reforms in its practices and procedures and such amendments in the memorandum of association, rules and regulations as may be considered necessary and proper
Srini contest bar
- The constitution of the committee or its deliberations shall not affect the ensuing elections which the BCCI shall hold within six weeks from the date of this order in accordance with the prevalent rules and regulations, subject to the condition that no one who has any commercial interest in the BCCI events (including N. Srinivasan) shall be eligible for contesting the elections for any post whatsoever. We make it clear that the disqualification for contesting elections applicable to those who are holding any commercial interest in BCCI events shall hold good and continue till such time the person concerned holds such commercial interest or till the committee considers and awards suitable punishment to those liable for the same; whichever is later.
Fees and timeline
- The committee shall be free to fix their fees which shall be paid by the BCCI who shall, in addition, bear all incidental expenses, such as travel, hotel, transport and secretarial services, necessary for the committee to conclude its proceedings. The fees will be paid by the BCCI to the members at such intervals and in such manner as the committee may decide. The venue of the proceedings shall be at the discretion of the committee.
- We hope and trust that the committee concludes the proceedings as early as possible, but as far as possible within a period of six months.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150123/jsp/frontpage/story_9829.jsp#.VMGa3dKUeSo
Bhaag , Srini, Bhaag
The verdict: what it means- (That's the spirit of the order even if hair-splitting throws up escape routes) | | R. Balaji | (That's the spirit of the order even if hair-splitting throws up escape routes)
New Delhi, Jan. 22: A Supreme Court bench of Justices T.S. Thakur and Ibrahim Kalifulla today delivered the judgment in the IPL case. The following questions and answers deal with the key features of the 29,000-word order.
What did the court say?
The most important decision has been to bar N. Srinivasan, Indian cricket's boss-in-exile and the serving chairman of the ICC, from contesting elections to any post in the BCCI.
The ban was issued because Srinivasan's ownership of the Chennai Super Kings (CSK), the IPL team headed by Mahendra Singh Dhoni, was found to be in conflict with his role as a cricket administrator. The conflict of interest question has been one of the most controversial issues to dog the IPL since its inception.
The court declared void an amendment to Rule 6.2.4 of IPL regulations, which allowed Srinivasan to simultaneously own an IPL team and run the cricket body. Before the amendment the rule read thus: "No administrators shall have, directly or indirectly, any commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the board." The impugned amendment added the following words at the end of the rule: "excluding events like IPL or Champions League Twenty20".
The court today called it "the true villain". "Suffice it to say that amendment to Rule 6.2.4 is the true villain in the situation at hand," the court said, adding: "Conflict of interest is one area which appears to have led to the current confusion and serious misgivings in the public mind as to the manner in which BCCI is managing its affairs."
What else?
The court indicted Gurunath Meiyappan, Srinivasan's son-in-law, and Raj Kundra, actress Shilpa Shetty's husband, on betting charges. More important, the court has concluded that Meiyappan and Kundra are "officials" of the CSK and the Rajasthan Royals, respectively.
Why is it important?
The conclusion that they are associated with the teams means both teams can be punished, which can even mean termination of contract. A committee of three former judges, chaired by former Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha, will decide the punishment. The committee will also suggest amendments to some of the BCCI's rules.
Is this the end of the road for Srinivasan?
Yes, if you go by the spirit of the court order. No, if you go by the cat-o'-nine-lives tactics so far adopted by Srini, the Survivor.
The order barring him from contesting the board elections says: "The constitution of the (three-member) committee or its deliberations shall not affect the ensuing elections which the BCCI shall hold within six weeks from the date of this order in accordance with the prevalent rules and regulations, subject to the condition that no one who has any commercial interest in the BCCI events (including N. Srinivasan) shall be eligible for contesting the elections for any post whatsoever."
Till here, the order is crystal clear.
But the following sentence says: "We make it clear that the disqualification for contesting elections applicable to those who are holding any commercial interest in BCCI events shall hold good and continue till such time the person concerned holds such commercial interest or till the committee considers and awards suitable punishment to those liable for the same; whichever is later."
This raises the question whether Srinivasan can contest if he dumps the CSK.
Can he, if he sells the CSK?
Looks difficult for this election, though technically not impossible. Nothing prevents Srinivasan from selling the CSK before six weeks by when BCCI elections will be held.
But there's a big catch. He will also have to wait for the punishment decision by the three-member committee. The court has given the committee up to six months to submit the report but expressed the hope that it will do so "as early as possible". Technically, anything is possible.
How does the punishment clause affect Srinivasan?
He has not been indicted on any direct charge. But as a team owner, he faces punishment. Clause II of the 110th paragraph of today's verdict says: "The quantum of punishment to be imposed on Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra as also their respective franchiseeseams/owners of the teams shall be determined by a committee...."
Meiyappan has been found without doubt to be a CSK official and he has been indicted for betting. This means the owners of the team face punishment. India Cements owns the CSK. Srinivasan directly holds 0.14 per cent shares in India Cements. The stake crosses 21 per cent if shares held by companies associated with him are included. (This does not include the share of his relatives). So, Srinivasan is also an owner of the CSK, which makes him liable for punishment.
What prevents a person from selling a team to a relative or a front company? Can't an aspirant then have the team and eat the BCCI cake, too?
Such devious routes are not uncommon. But keep in mind the "spirit" of the judgment and that the mood in the country now is to question such tactics. Someone is certain to go to court if matters reach such a pass.
Why keep referring to the "spirit" of the judgment?
Because the Supreme Court virtually shredded to pieces Srinivasan's claim that there was no conflict of interest.
Referring to the exemption clause that has now been declared void, the court said the board's amendment "violates a fundamental tenet of law that no one can be a judge in his own cause, recognised universally as an essential facet of the principles of natural justice which must permeate every action that BCCI takes in the discharge of its public functions". The amendment was cleared when Srinivasan was an office-bearer.
The apex court cited at least three instances from which the impact of the conflict of interest could be gauged.
The BCCI awarded a compensation of Rs 10.40 crore to the CSK when the Champions League tournament of 2008 was cancelled. "True, that a similar amount was awarded to the Rajasthan Royals, the other finalist also, but that does not mean... he was not privy to a self-serving decision that benefited India Cements Ltd, a company promoted by Srinivasan," the apex court said.
The bench said the fact that some others also participated in the decision-making process as members of the IPL governing council "does not cure the legal flaw arising out of the benefactor also being the beneficiary of the decision".
The court also referred to another payout of Rs 13.10 crore in 2009. The court did not specify the recipient. (In 2009, the BCCI had tried to cushion the presumptive losses of IPL teams as the venue was shifted to South Africa because of the general election in India.)
"Sibal, (Kapil Sibal, Srini's counsel) no doubt, argued that this amount was returned by ICL (India Cements) subsequently, but such return does not improve the matters. The decision to award an amount higher than the one awarded earlier appears to have led to public criticism raising the pitch further for Srinivasan's removal from the BCCI on the principles of conflict of interest."
The bench said the third instance where Srinivasan's commercial interest came in direct conflict with his duty as president of the BCCI was when allegations of betting were levelled against his son-in-law, Meiyappan.
"Facts now prove that Meiyappan was involved in betting in IPL matches even when he was a team official of CSK.
"A clear conflict of interest has arisen between what is Srinivasan's duty as president of the BCCI on the one hand and his interest as father-in-law of Meiyappan and owner of CSK on the other. The argument that Srinivasan owns only 0.14 per cent equity in ICL is of no avail if not totally misleading when we find from the record that his family directly and/or indirectly holds 29.23 per cent of the equity in ICL," the apex court said.
So, will things change for the better now?
Good question. If the board wants to clean up, it has a chance now. But Team Srini is still around. Don't write it off.
What about IPL VIII?
The next season is three months away, in April. If the three-member committee does not file its punishment report in three months, the IPL should go ahead as scheduled. If not, it will depend on what punishment the CSK and the Royals will earn.
And the World Cup?
The spectacle is less than a month away. With the shadow of scandal and the sword of punishment hanging over the IPL, it remains to be seen how morale will be affected.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150123/jsp/frontpage/story_9830.jsp#.VMGbU9KUeSo |
|
