Choose between BCCI and IPL...

BCCI secretary N. Srinivasan New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Thursday, sought to know whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) secretary N. Srinivasan would consider giving up one of the two hats he was wearing — that of BCCI secretary and IPL franchise owner — till the Madras High Court disposed of a suit filed by former BCCI president A.C. Muthiah alleging conflict of interest in holding on to both.  A two-judge bench, comprising Justices J.M. Panchal and Gyansudha Mishra, suggested this as an interim arrangement during the course of hearing of an appeal filed by Muthiah against an interim order of the Madras High Court declining to prevent Srinivasan from contesting for the post of president in the September 29 elections. Srinivasan’s counsel Mukul Rohatgi said there was no conflict of interest in being both BCCI secretary and India Cements-owning Chennai Super Kings.  However, Justice Gyansudha Mishra demurred saying that the basic issue in this case was about eligibility and conflict of interest. She also pointedly asked the counsel to ask his client to choose whether he would be a member of the BCCI or would continue to be an owner of Chennai Super Kings.  “You can’t wear two hats. Till the main suit is decided you apply this option.” She asked Rohatgi to seek instructions from his client on this.  “You tell him to resign as member of BCCI and continue to own the IPL side or be a member of BCCI and relinquish the ownership of IPL,” she said. “You choose either of these,” she added. “You can’t continue in two capacities.”  She wondered what prejudice would be caused to Muthiah if this option was exercised in the interim. Rohatgi at this juncture clarified that Srinivasan was not the owner of Chennai Super Kings. “The owner is India Cements. I am one of the 12 directors of India Cements.” The counsel said that though Srinivasan was the managing director, he was not the “owner”. But Justice Mishra insisted that since the allegation was about him influencing the “decision-making” process, he should consider exercising this option.  Rohatgi, however, argued that the whole suit against Srinivasan was actuated by mala fide. “Grave prejudice will be caused if I am prevented from contesting to the post of BCCI president,” he argued on behalf of Srinivasan.  “That choice cannot be put to me as I am not the owner. India Cements is the owner,” he claimed. Rejecting Muthiah’s argument that the corporate veil has to be pierced to unveil the truth about Chennai Super Kings’s ownership, Rohatgi said that the corporate veil can only be lifted (by courts) as an exception in cases of fraud and some other such reason. “It cannot based on bald and vague allegations.”  Justice Mishra then sought to know how such a major decision as changing a rule was taken by the working committee (which had 10 members) as opposed to the Board (which has 30 members). “Is it not conflict of interest? You are the secretary. Can’t it be said that you influenced the decision of the working committee? “  After all, the main allegation was that the amendment was carried out without following due procedure. As per procedure all members have to have notice of the intent to change the rule before it was carried out.  However, Muthiah’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi in his counter-argument insisted that the suit was maintainable. The BCCI rules specified that there should be no conflict of interest either direct or indirect, he contended.  That rule was changed to exempt IPL, Champions League and Twenty20 from its purview. Muthiah initially complained to the BCCI but after his complaint was ignored went to the Madras High Court. Arguments will continue on September 21.