Full Text: What the Supreme Court said about the IPL, Srinivasan and BCCI

The Supreme Court has instructed the three-member panel Justice Mukul Mudgal consider just two specific issues in its investigation of the 2013 IPL, both of which were part of the original public interest litigation filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar. The two issues are: a) The allegations of betting and spot-fixing in the IPL matches against Gurunath Meiyappan, the team principal of Chennai Superkings, 3rd respondent and the players and the 4th respondent/team owner of IPL franchisee Rajasthan Royals. 

The BCCI must co-operate with the probe panel, but the panel has not been given any summoning or investigatory powers. Reuters (b) The allegations against Gurunath Meiyappan, the respondents 3 and 4 with regard to their involvement in spot-fixing and betting. The third respondent is India Cements, the owners of Chennai Super Kings, while the fourth is Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited, the owners of Rajasthan Royals. 

This means that N Srinivasan and the BCCI have been excluded from the ambit of the probe, which is why the court allowed Srinivasan to take charge of the board. In the court’s order, there is also no mention of a time limit for the probe, though it has been reported, including by Firstpost, that the panel has four months to submit its report. There is also no mention of any investigatory or summoning power that has been granted to the panel. As far as collecting evidence goes, the court has merely asked the BCCI to “cooperate with the probe by giving all necessary information and documents and materials to the Probe Committee.”

 The court also chose not to comment on the veracity of the BCCI’s earlier probe, which exonerated all concerned. The full text of the Supreme Court’s order is reproduced below: Heard learned counsel for the parties. We had passed an order on 27th September, 2013 in the interlocutory application that the proposed Annual General Meeting of the Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) may be held on 29th September, 2013 as scheduled and election in the Annual General Meeting may also be held and in case the respondent No. 2 (N. Srinivasan) is elected as President, he will not take charge until further orders. After the aforesaid order, the Annual General Meeting of the BCCI as well as the election in the Annual General Meeting were held and the respondent No. 2 was elected as the President. 

Considering the fact that in PIL Petition No. 55 of 2013 which was filed by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner had challenged the constitution of the Probe Committee comprising two retired Judges of the Madras High Court and the Bombay High Court in the impugned order had held the constitution of the Probe Committee as ultra vires the IPL Rules and considering the fact that the respondent No. 2 (Srinivasan) has been re-elected as the President of the BCCI, we need to constitute a Probe Committee for inquiring into the allegations of betting and spot-fixing against Gurunath Meiyappan, who happens to be the son-in-law of the respondent No. 2, as well as the team owner of IPL Franchisee Rajasthan Royals. 

Without casting any aspersion on the two retired Judges of the Madras High Court who constituted the earlier Probe Committee, and considering the fact that the Mumbai Police has submitted the charge sheet against Gurunath Meiyappan, we are of the view that a Probe Committee comprising members who can function independently of the BCCI and its President (respondent No. 2) should be constituted for probing the allegations referred to in the PIL Petition filed before the Bombay High Court. 

When the matter was taken up in Court on 7th October, 2013, we suggested that a fresh Probe Committee comprising Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, (retired Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court), Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, Senior Advocate and Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Nilay Dutta, Senior Advocate, who are well-acquainted with the sport of cricket, should constitute the Probe Committee. We, therefore, requested the learned counsel for the parties, to offer their comments on the proposed Probe Committee. When the matter was taken up today, the rival parties had no objection to the composition of the proposed Probe Committee.

 We, therefore, appoint a Committee comprising: (i) Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retired Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as Chairman. (ii) Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, Senior Advocate and Additional Solicitor General as Member. (iii) Mr. Nilay Dutta, Senior Advocate, Gauhati High Court as Member. The Registry will send a copy of the PIL Petition No. 55 of 2013 which was filed before the High Court and which is also part of the record of this Court to the Chairman and other two Members of the Committee with copies of this order and the Probe Committee so constituted will inquire only into the following allegations which are the subject matter of prayers (a) and (b) of the PIL Petition filed before the High Court:- (a) the allegations of betting and spot-fixing in the IPL matches against Gurunath Meiyappan, the team principal of Chennai Superkings, 3rd respondent and the players and the 4th respondent/team owner of IPL franchisee Rajasthan Royals. (b) the allegations against Gurunath Meiyappan, the respondents 3 and 4 with regard to their involvement in spot-fixing and betting. 

The BCCI will bear all the expenses of travel, boarding and lodging. The Chairman and the Members of the Committee will also be entitled to a fee of Rs. 1 lakh per working day from the BCCI. In view of the constitution of the Probe Committee and exclusion of the BCCI as well as respondent No. 2 from the probe, it will be open for respondent No. 2 to take charge of the BCCI as its President. We, however, make it clear that the BCCI or respondent No. 2 will not in any way interfere with the probe conducted by the Probe Committee and shall cooperate with the probe by giving all necessary information and documents and materials to the Probe Committee.

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/sports/full-text-what-the-supreme-court-said-about-the-ipl-srinivasan-and-bcci-1162491.html?utm_source=ref_article