|
The BCCI has filed a special leave petition (SLP) in India's Supreme Court against the ruling
of the Bombay High Court declaring illegal and unconstitutional the
board's appointment of the independent inquiry commission. The petition
has claimed, among other issues, that the rules the board was deemed by
the high court to have violated in setting up the commission were not
mandatory or absolute.
The original petitioners, the Cricket Association of Bihar, had already
filed a caveat with the Supreme Court to enable it to be a part of any
appeal filed by the BCCI.
In the 13-page petition, the BCCI has sought to contest the High Court
order on various grounds including its decision to entertain the PIL
given the board's status as a private body; it has sought to challenge
the petitioner's right to file a PIL and question the legality of the
inquiry panel when it was not even part of the BCCI nor, therefore,
subject to the findings of the inquiry commission. It has also sought to
challenge whether the High Court could make a declaration when no
relief of any kind was sought.
In their 61-page order
delivered last Friday, Justices SJ Vazifdar and MS Sonak had held that
BCCI had violated its own constitution - specifically Rule 2.2 of the
IPL Operational Rules, which mandated that at least one member of the
league's Code of Behaviour Committee needed to be on the inquiry panel.
Although Sanjay Jagdale, the former BCCI secretary and part of the Code
of Behaviour Committee, was on the original three-member commission, the
BCCI did not name a replacement once he resigned. "In other words a
commission cannot be constituted without at least one member of the IPL
Code of Behavior Committee," the order noted.
However the BCCI's contention in its petition is that while the High
Court had declared that it was the board's "prerogative" under the IPL
Operational Rules 2013 to appoint an inquiry commission and not for the
court to pass an order, "it has erred in commenting on and finding that
the probe commission as constituted was against the internal rules of
the Petitioner."
The BCCI is also contending that the IPL Operational Rules, which the
High Court had said it (BCCI) had violated were not "mandatory" or
"absolute" and the board had the authority to modify them. "It is
submitted that rule 2 (1) of the said rules specifically states that
'all complaints and/or breaches of the Regulations or charges of
misconduct under the Regulations and any dispute between a player and
franchise in respect of such player contract shall (unless BCCI in its
absolute discretion decide otherwise) be decided by BCCI in the manner
set out below'," the SLP said. "It is submitted that the manner of
setting up commission/panel as set out in the Operational Rules are not
mandatory since they can by the express terms of the Rules themselves be
altered by the BCCI."
It also stated that the High Court had failed to appreciate that the
inquiry commission comprised two "independent" members. "It is submitted
that the committee that was appointed comprised of two retired judges
of the Madras High Court, who in fact are outsiders and no way can be
said to be interested persons. While so, a Commission consisting of
outsiders of the Petitioner (BCCI) with no office bearer or member of
the Petitioner itself, being a member of such Committee would in fact be
laudatory and give rise to greater transparency," the SLP said.
The Bombay High Court's ruling, issued last week, was in response to the
CAB's Public Interest Litigation that the two-member panel set up to
investigate allegations of corruption in the IPL was constituted
illegally. The court had raised questions on the manner in which the
panel was constituted, stating that the BCCI had violated its own
constitution in the process.
The court's findings came two days after the BCCI's probe panel
comprising retired justices of Madras High Court - T Jayaram Chouta and R
Balasubramanian had cleared
Gurunath Meiyappan, one of the top officials at Chennai Super Kings,
the franchise owner India Cements, Rajasthan Royals' co-owner Raj Kundra
and Royals' parent company Jaipur IPL Pvt Ltd of "wrongdoing".
Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo
Feeds: Nagraj Gollapudi
© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
No comments:
Post a Comment