Supreme Court reserves order in IPL spot-fixing case

Court reserves order after hearing counsels for Srinivasan, Meiyappan, Raj Kundra, BCCI and Cricket Association of Bihar, the petitioner in the case

• New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order in the case concerning spot fixing and betting allegations that came to light during the sixth edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2013. At stake is the future, in Indian cricket administration, of the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI’s) president-in-limbo N. Srinivasan, and the fate of his IPL team, the Chennai Super Kings. The case also concerns a possible conflict of interest over Srinivasan’s role as head of BCCI and the owner of an IPL team. A bench of justices T.S. Thakur and F.M.I. Kalifulla reserved the order after hearing extensive arguments from lawyers representing Srinivasan, his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, Rajasthan Royals, Rajasthan Royals co-owner Raj Kundra, IPL chief operating officer Sundar Raman, India Cements Ltd, BCCI, and the Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB), the petitioner in the case. The court also heard arguments from two intervenors, former Punjab Cricket Association chief I.S. Bindra and lawyer Rahul Mehra. Senior lawyer Rajeev Dhawan appearing for Bindra argued that the BCCI’s autonomy in making its own rules and regulations was less important than the public interest in ensuring fairness of the sport of cricket. Mehra raised issues of lack of transparency in the functioning of the BCCI and its inability to effectively combat the menace of match fixing and betting. Since November, after the court appointed Mudgal Committee submitted its report, and the court revealed names of certain individuals named in the report, the apex court has been hearing arguments to determine the next course of action. Srinivasan’s lawyer Kapil Sibal has argued that a BCCI administrator’s mere commercial interest in the IPL would not be an “irreconcilable” conflict of interest. Sibal urged the court that striking down the regulation that allows for such situations would be akin to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” and the focus should be on devising mechanisms to deal with situations when conflict of interest arises. BCCI’s counsel C.A. Sundaram said that while conflict of interest is bad by itself, situations where an administrator made some financial gain from the IPL would not amount to conflict in all circumstances. During the course of these arguments, the court has favoured setting up of an independent committee with judicial members to decide the penalty, if any, that may be imposed on persons found to have indulged in betting by the Mudgal Committee. The court is also considering whether this committee should be tasked with suggesting amendments to BCCI’s rules and regulations. The court is going to decide the future course of action in the wake of the submission of the final report of the court-appointed Mudgal committee that looked into allegations of betting and match-fixing against Meiyappan, an official of the Chennai Super Kings, and Kundra. The Mudgal committee had submitted its final report to the court on 3 November in sealed covers. This report, after certain redactions, was subsequently made public. The report named four individuals including Srinivasan, Meiyappan, Raman and Kundra.