Conflict of interest: Order on plea against BCCI official reserved (Second Lead)

NEW DELHI - The Supreme Court Tuesday reserved its verdict on a petition seeking to restrain Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) secretary N. Srinivasan from contesting the Sep 29 election for president of the cricketing body.

The apex court bench of Justice J.M. Panchal and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra reserved the verdict on a petition by former BCCI president A.C. Muthiah.

When Srinivasan questioned the petitioner’s intention behind filing the plea, the court wondered if it was for the court to go deep into the mind of the petitioner in deciding whether the intention of the petitioner or the cause he was pleading for should tilt the scales of justice.

The court raised this query to the senior counsel Rohinton Nariman who said that Muthiah initiated the proceedings against his client Srinivasan after losing to him in the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association election.

When the court asked Nariman what would count more with the court — the intention or the cause of the petitioner, the senior counsel said that both and, more importantly, the route of remedy he had chosen.

At this, Justice Misra said the senior counsel was not committing an answer but making a submission.

Muthiah has contended that Srinivasan under the BCCI rules attracted disqualification from its membership for violating the rule restraining its office bearers from engaging in conflict of interest with the activities of the cricketing body.

The BCCI rule restrains its office bearers from having any commercial interest in the cricket matches organized by it.

Srinivasan by virtue of his being secretary of the board and the managing director of the India Cements company - the owner of Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Chennai Super Kings - was placed in conflict of interest situation, contended Muthiah.

Earlier, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioner, said that under the board rules, Srinivasan was liable to be disqualified from the membership of the board if he engages in conflict of interest even for a day.

In the instant case, Srinivasan was involved in the conflict of interest activities for nine months, counsel said.

Singhvi said that any amendment to bail out Srinivasan by exempting the IPL matches of the said rule would be prospective and not retrospective.

Rebutting Srinivasan’s contention that the BCCI’s interests were not hurt by his engagement with Chennai Super Kings, the senior counsel said that the conflict of interest clause was not hostage to any “actual pecuniary gains or loss”.