Why Chennai Super Kings can’t be banned from IPL

Supreme Court special bench of Justice T S Thakur and F M Kalifullah, while hearing the IPL scam case, asked BCCI that, whether Chennai Super Kings franchise should be disqualified in order to sort out the conflict of interest issues pertaining to the 2013 IPL corruption case. Court also directed BCCI that, the 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.

Court observed that, the difference between Srinivasan’s duty as president of the BCCI and his interest as an owner of an IPL team is “obvious”. While hearing the case Supreme Court asked,

  • “If there are so many anomalies, why can’t the BCCI act according its rules and disqualify CSK?”
  • “What is more valuable to Mr Srinivasan? Is it his office or his team?”

Court also opined that the “dual role” of MS Dhoni as the captain of CSK and vice president of India Cements is a matter of “concern.” Hence, 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.

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.

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.

Share this post:

Related Posts