#dnaEdit: Time for resolution

It is not surprising that the conflict of interest involved in BCCI president-in-exile N Srinivasan controlling the affairs of IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings through his company India Cements has again resurfaced. In April 2011, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court hearing former BCCI president AC Muthiah’s appeal had pronounced a split verdict on this issue. On Monday, another Supreme Court bench pointed out to Srinivasan the indefensible conflict of interest issue at the heart of the debate: of him being the BCCI president and the owner of a team whose official, also his son-in-law, Gurunath Meiyappan, was indicted of betting by the Mudgal committee. It is now evident that Meiyappan was emboldened by Srinivasan’s clout in the BCCI. Srinivasan’s contention, all along, has been that the Chennai Super Kings was owned by India Cements in which he has only minuscule stakeholding. It is another matter that Srinivasan is the company’s vice-chairman and managing director. In effect, this situation calls for revisiting the amendment to Clause 6.2.4 of BCCI regulations that enables Srinivasan to continue with this duality of BCCI administration and IPL team ownership.

Clause 6.2.4 earlier read: “No administrator shall have, directly or indirectly, any commercial interest in the matches and events conducted by the board.” After the amendment, it said: “No administrator shall have directly or indirectly any commercial interest in any of the events of the BCCI, excluding IPL, Champions League and Twenty20.” In the April 2011 judgment, Justice Gyan Sudha Misra held that the principle of conflict of interest did not require actual proof of any pecuniary gain and it seeks to prevent a future or potential situation offering commercial benefits to the principal actors involved. She also noted that the purpose of avoiding conflict of interest was to prevent and not merely cure situations where fair and valid discharge of duties is inhibited by commercial interests. In Srinivasan’s case, Justice Misra noted that he was simultaneously BCCI treasurer, V-C and MD of India Cements, ex-officio member of IPL Governing Council, and chairman, managing committee of Chennai Super Kings. She also noted that in this position he was “privy to highly sensitive information about the bidding process, the design of the tender, the rules of the game, the future plans of BCCI in respect of IPL”. 

However, Justice Misra’s colleague, Justice Panchal ruled that the amendment did not violate the BCCI’s memorandum of association, or its bye-laws, and that there was no conflict of interest as the BCCI general body approved the amendment passed by the BCCI’s nine-member managing committee. The differing interpretations of the two judges allowed Srinivasan’s reign to continue. The BCCI, as a body, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, is entitled to safeguard its autonomy as ruled by the Supreme Court in its 2005 judgment against Zee Telefilms challenging BCCI for cancelling its telecast bid. However, the BCCI performs important public functions like selecting the Indian cricket team, overseeing regional cricket associations and managing the sport in the country. It cannot be seen as acting in an arbitrary or whimsical manner because the credibility of the game comes into question then. The perception that Srinivasan is enjoying dual-benefits as a BCCI administrator and cricket team owner must be corrected. Srinivasan must take a call on disengaging himself from Indian Cements while he helms the BCCI. To complicate matters for BCCI and Srinivasan, the BCCI has to take a call on suspending Chennai Super Kings now after Meiyappan’s alleged misconduct for bringing disrepute under Clause 11.3. This makes Srinivasan’s presence in the BCCI untenable as well.