IPL spot-fixing case: You were only watching the fun, SC tells Sundar Raman
New Delhi: Indian Premier League (IPL) chief operating officer received flak from Supreme Court on Monday. During the spot-fixing scandal hearing, the top court said that Raman was only 'watching the fun.' Raman – one of the four officials charged for offence – reportedly was busy serving VVIPS and did not register a complaint.
The top court said: “You didn’t deem fit to register a complaint because you were taking care of celebrities. You were only watching the fun.”
The debate on Justice Mukul Mudgal report is expected to end on Tuesday. According to the report, Raman had contacted a bookie eight times in one season.
The hearing on Mudgal committee’s report on IPL corruption and spot-fixing scandal resumed on Monday.
The BCCI chief-in-exile, N Srinivasan, on December 10 submitted an undertaking in Supreme Court saying that if he is elected BCCI President, he will keep himself away from all the IPL related issues.
The Tamil Nadu strongman is also seeking SC permission to contest BCCI election.
The apex court asked BCCI to postpone its AGM for elections till January 31, 2015. Earlier, the elections were originally scheduled for Dec 17.
The Supreme Court added, "Postponement of December 17 AGM is necessary as the hearing in the matter is not likely to conclude before that:"
Meanwhile, the Indian cricket board has opposed setting up of high power panel to look into conflict of interest issue and punishment to be meted out on the basis of Mudgal committee. "Appointment of high power committee could affect BCCI's autonomy," BCCI told SC.
The apex court told BCCI that game of cricket will collapse if people's confidence in the sport is not restored.
Earlier, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) put forth five options before the Supreme Court to decide on the next course of action or punishment to those found guilty in connection with the 2013 Indian Premier League (IPL) spot fixing and betting case.
According to reports, the five options submitted by the BCCI are: first, that the BCCI's internal disciplinary committee may look after the issue; second, that the BCCI may nominate a committee of two independent experts; third, that the apex court may appoint a disciplinary committee; fourth, that the Supreme Court may appoint a committee of two judicial officers; and fifth, that the Justice Mudgal Committee itself may decide on the course of action or punishment.
