Supreme Court slams N Srinivasan

A Bench of justices T.S. Thakur and Ibrahim Kalifulla told senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Srinivasan, “we are not happy. He (Srinivasan) should not have done this (presided over the meeting).”

Apparently the bench suggested to Sibal that Srinivasan should not preside over the AGM of the BCCI and the elections scheduled for March 2. The bench was hearing a contempt of court petition filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar against Srinivasan and three others for violating the judgment and chairing the working committee meeting.

Sensing the mood of the Bench inclining to issue contempt notices to Srinivasan, Shivlal Yadav, the interim president appointed by the court; Sanjay Patel, BCCI secretary and Aniruddh Chaudhary, treasurer, Sibal told the court that for the present notice need not be issued and that he would take instructions from Srinivasan on whether he would keep off from the AGM on March 2.

Earlier senior counsel Nalini Chidambaram, appearing for CAB said the apex court on January 22 had held that no one who had any commercial interest in the BCCI events including Srinivasan would be eligible for contesting the elections for any post whatsoever. She said the disqualification for contesting elections applicable to those who were holding any commercial interest in BCCI events would apply to Srinivasan and he should not be allowed to preside over the AGM and the elections on March 2.

She said in view of this judgment being in the nature of a declaration, Srinivasan was disqualified to hold the post of BCCI president. She said if a person was disqualified from contesting elections, how could he preside over the meeting in his capacity as president when the disqualification still continued. She argued that current interim president, Shivlal Yadav, should have presided over the meeting.

Sibal pointed out that Srinivasan had not violated any order and he took no decision in that meeting; he only fixed the date for elections and the AGM, which was to be held on March 2.

Justice Thakur told the counsel, “If he can't contest how can he hold the post and preside over the meeting? Has the position of Srinivasan improved after our judgment? We have found him to be disqualified due to conflict of interest and said he cannot contest elections. Having said so in our judgment, he should not have done that. It should sound that we are gunning for somebody. It is not so. When we have found him disqualified what is the need for him to preside over the meeting when his position is vulnerable. We are not happy.”

Added Justice Thakur, “We only hope that these things don’t go beyond a point. He may have done so much for cricket. But we don’t think that this (to preside over the meeting) is a bona fide interpretation of our order. When he cannot contest elections, how can he preside over the meeting? How can he ignore our order? He should have fallen in line. It need not become an acrimonious and slanging match between the counsel for the petitioner and Srinivasan. See whatever possible could be done keeping in mind the spirit of our order.” The bench posted the matter for further hearing on February 27.