The fate of N Srinivasan and Chennai Super Kings IPL franchise hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court is expected to take up the Mudgal committee report on Friday.
The court may raise the question whether Srinivasan can be allowed to head BCCI in the future if his son-in-law, Gurunath Meiyappan, is found to be involved in IPL-6 betting and spot-fixing scandal.
Srinivasan had to step down as the BCCI president due to his involvement with CSK, one of the Indian Premier League franchises under the radar, though he remains International Cricket Council chairman.
A committee headed by Justice Mukul Mudgal has conducted a probe into the alleagtions of spot-fixing and betting in the 2013 edition of the high-voltage league.
A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice TS Thakur had recently said it would open the Mudgal committee report on Friday, adding there will be "no difficulty" if there was nothing against Srinivasan and his relatives in the report.
The bench had also turned down the plea of BCCI, seeking its direction to stay the proceedings on a plea at Bombay high court which is to decide validity of amendments in the BCCI rules allowing Srinivasan to contest the election for the post of board president.
The apex court, however, had asked the HC to confine its hearing on the validity of the rules. The court had on September 1 rejected Srinivasan's plea for reinstatement as BCCI president, saying he cannot be allowed to take charge till he gets a clean chit from the Committee which was probing him and others in the matter.
The bench had said that probe was going on and Srinivasan could not be allowed to function as BCCI president. Justice Mudgal committee, which was conducting probe against Srinivasan and 12 prominent players in the scandal, had on August 29 filed its interim report in a sealed cover before the Supreme Court.
The apex court had on May 16 given the task to conduct probe against 69-year-old Srinivasan and the players. It had rejected BCCI's proposal to conduct the probe through its own panel.
There is a big debate in media and cricket experts over whether the players named in the report should be made public.