Cricket board secretary faces court query on dual role

NEW DELHI - The Supreme Court Thursday suggested to Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) secretary N. Srinivasan to either contest election for the post of the cricket body’s president or retain his interest in Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise of Chennai Super Kings.

The court was hearing a petition alleging conflict of interest involving Srinivasan who is also the vice chairman and managing director of company India Cements which owns the franchise of Chennai Super Kings.

“What great prejudice would be caused to you (Srinivasan) if you continue with the India Cements and Chennai Super Kings and not hobnob with the BCCI,” said an apex court bench of Justice J.M. Panchal and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.

Justice Misra asked senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi to take instructions from his client Srinivasan on the court’s suggestion.

Justice Misra said the “conflict of interest was a core issue and the nagging question is can you continue in dual position”.

The apex court was hearing an appeal by former BCCI president A.C. Muthiah contending that Srinivasan being the BCCI secretary and vice chairman and managing director of India Cements was involved in a conflict of interest that was expressly prohibited by the unamended rules of the BCCI.

Appearing for Srinivasan, Rohtagi said that Srinivasan and India Cements were two distinct identities and could not be merged in each other for establishing the conflict of interest case.

He said that preventing Srinivasan from contesting elections to the post of BCCI president would amount to infringing upon his rights granted under the constitution and ousting him from a democratic process.

Rohtagi said all this would be at the instance of Muthiah who had no locus standi in the matter and nurtured a personal grudge against Srinivasan after losing in an election of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association to him.

Senior counsel Rohinton Nariman who also appeared for Srinivasan said that merely having 0.05 percent share in the company does not make Srinivasan the alter ego of India Cement.

He said that the apex court has held that corporate veil to the identity of the individual behind it could not be pierced and if at all it had to be done then it could be done only in the rarest of the rare case.

Nariman said that if you pierce the veil of India Cement then you would not run into Srinivasan but 11 other directors. The court was told the public financial institutions together held 70 percent stakes in the company.

Responding to the contention on behalf of the BCCI and Srinivasan, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Muthiah, said he had the locus standi and was best suited to raise the contention of conflict of interest against Srinivasan.

He said that one could not expect Srinivasan to move against himself or 30 other members of the BCCI whom he described as “conspirators and colluders” who were enjoying the fruits of office.

The senior counsel said that Srinivasan was engaged in “insider trading”. He said that as secretary he takes every decision about what the BCCI would do or would be doing and then follows it in India Cements. He said that insider trading was a cognizable offence.