Former India captains Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri found their
names cropping up along with those of Krishnamachari Srikkanth and
Sourav Ganguly at the ongoing Supreme Court hearings on the Indian
Premier League spot-fixing
New Delhi:
Sitting in faraway Australia, former India captains Sunil Gavaskar and
Ravi Shastri still found their names cropping up along with those of
Krishnamachari Srikkanth and Sourav Ganguly at the ongoing Supreme Court
hearings on the Indian Premier League spot-fixing and betting scandal
here on Wednesday.
The four were
named with two other former India cricketers in a list of those with a
conflict of interest submitted to the Court by the Board of Control for
Cricket in India. The two-member bench reserved its orders on the matter
till after the winter break. The revelations came after Justices T.S.
Thakur and F.M.I. Kalifulla had on Tuesday asked the BCCI for a list of
administrators and players with commercial interests in the IPL and its
spin-off, the Champions League T20.
Speaking
to NDTV, however, Gavaskar said from Brisbane, “I was not in court
today and I am not aware about the nature of the argument. But I must
clarify that I am not in any way connected with the BCCI administration.
The last administrative post that I had was the chairmanship of the
technical committee back in 2008 or ’09. I have not been in any
committee since then.
It was on the
directive of the honourable Supreme Court that I was appointed the
interim chairman of IPL. After that I haven’t had anything to do with
BCCI administration.”The court reserved its orders on whether or not
BCCI president-in-exile Narayanaswami Srinivasan could contest again for
the post as also on whether there was a conflict of interest in Mr
Srinivasan owning IPL team Chennai Super Kings through his association
with India Cements.
On Wednesday, Mr
Srinivasan’s counsel, Mr Kapil Sibal, put forward the argument that
commercial interests were not necessarily a conflict of interest as
justification for Clause 6.2.4 that allowed BCCI officials to also own
IPL and/or CLT20 teams. A verdict on the matter, and on whether the
controversial clause should be quashed, is now only likely in the new
year. The bench will also decide if a high-powered panel is needed to
examine the findings of the Mukul Mudgal probe panel and fix liability
and punishment for Mr Srinivasan’s son-in-law, Mr Gurunath Meiyappan,
IPL operations chief Sundar Raman and Rajasthan Royals co-owner Raj
Kundra.
BCCI counsel Aryama Sundaram
placed before the court a list that included the names of six former
India players as either being part of IPL committees, or as support
staff with various IPL franchises, or the BCCI itself, even as he argued
that there was no need to change Clause 6.2.4 as “the possibility of
conflict of interest may not be enough to remove a clause”.
On
Ganguly, Mr Sundaram said he was a member of the BCCI technical
committee as well as a player of the Pune Warriors franchise and
commentator, to which Justices Thakur and Kalifulla asked, “Does Ganguly
play? He does not have a stake in the match, who wins or loses, he
doesn’t have a commercial interest in the match.”
Similarly,
Srikkanth was named as a selector and mentor to Sunrisers Hyderabad
without mentioning the fact that he was CSK’s brand ambassador from 2008
to early 2011, while serving as chairman of selectors from September
2008 to September 2012.The court, however, reacted, asking how Srikkanth
could be a selector as well as have a role in the IPL. “This is
contradicting the BCCI’s stand that IPL records are not used, not
considered by selection by selectors at any level.”
Justice
Kallifullah pointed out that the BCCI had no procedure to deal with
conflict of interest, but “the conflict of interest is very
deep-rooted”, while noting that though Mr Srinivasan had done so much
for cricket, “ultimately your image is tarnished”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment