Name those with stakes in the IPL, SC tells BCCI

The Supreme Court today asked the BCCI to produce details of the cricket officials and the players holding commercial interests in the Indian Premier League (IPL) and the Champions League (CL).

A Bench comprising Justices TS Thakur and FMI Kalifulla said it required the information to verify the BCCI's contention that allowing them to have such financial stakes was necessary for the survival of the IPL and the CL and the promotion of cricket.

The Bench noted that the BCCI was trying to defend its decision to exempt the IPL and the CL from the purview of its Rule 6.2.4, which debars its office-bearers from holding any commercial interest in cricket, without producing any material in support of the contention.

The Bench also asked the BCCI's senior counsel Aryaman Sundaram as to how many cricket administrators, barring deposed board president N Srivasan, were owning IPL teams. Chennai Super Kings (CSK) is owned by a company, India Cements, headed by Srinivasan as Managing Director.

Sundaram said no other official or player own any IPL team, though some of them had stakes in other forms. At this, the Bench remarked that this showed the IPL's survival did not depend on letting the BCCI officials or cricket players to own teams or hold commercial interests. 

Like the other seven IPL teams had been bought by non-cricket officials in the opening auction, CSK would also have gone to some such person or entity if Rule 6.2.4, originally meant for avoiding conflict of interest, had not been amended to exempt the IPL and the CL, the SC pointed out.

The Bench also made it clear that it would strike down the 2008 amendment if it came to the conclusion that it was not in the interest of cricket, the survival of which depended on people's assumption that the matches were free from fixing and other malpractices and no fraud was being played on them.

"If you falter on this aspect, you are answerable to us," the Bench observed, noting that the BCCI was discharging public functions such as selecting the Indian team, which normally is the responsibility of the state.

A former Ranji Trophy player, Mohd Moinuddin, contended in the SC that it was unfortunate that the BCCI had exempted the IPL and the CL from the rule meant to check conflict of interest, instead of taking any concrete step to check betting and fixing in the past 14 years. Moinuddin also contended that BCCI was not following the good practices of Olympics and other such international bodies to give at least 25 per cent representation to players in cricket administration. 

The Bench is hearing appeals of BCCI and Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB), both challenging a Bombay High Court order quashing the BCCI inquiry panel to go into allegations of betting and fixing in IPL 2013. While the BCCI has come against the quashing, CAB has challenged the HC's refusal to constitute a fresh probe panel. The arguments are expected to conclude tomorrow. 

 

• The Bench noted that the BCCI was trying to defend its decision to exempt the IPL and the CL from the purview of its Rule 6.2.4, which debars its office-bearers from holding any commercial interest in cricket, without producing any material in support of the contention.
•  
• The Bench also made it clear that it would strike down the 2008 amendment if it came to the conclusion that it was not in the interest of cricket.