Meiyappan's role in IPL scam is like insider trading: SC
The SC said that Gurunath Meiyappan's role in IPL betting and spot-fixing scandal seemed like 'insider trading' and agreed to hear a plea for making public the names of cricketers, who were mentioned in the Justice Mudgal Committee report.cricket Updated: Nov 25, 2014 22:41 IST
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that N Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan's role in IPL betting and spot-fixing scandal seemed like "insider trading" and agreed to hear a plea for making public the names of cricketers, who were mentioned in the Justice Mudgal Committee report.
"If Meiyappan was leaking information and someone else was putting bet then it is like insider trading," a bench of justices T S Thakur and F M I Kalifulla said when it was submitted that Srinivasan's son-in-law was a part of Chennai Super Kings(CSK) and was always with team members at all functions whether it was dug-out or making team strategy.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Cricket Association of Bihar(CAB), on whose plea apex court had directed probe in IPL-6 betting and spot fixing scandal, said the stand taken by Srinivasan and India Cements that Meiyappan was just a cricket enthusiast was to cover him up and the IPL franchise in the scam.
The bench also raised questions on why the second report of Mudgal Commiittee was silent on the alleged cover up of Meiyappan by the CSK owner India Cements and Srinivasan which was stated in its first report.
In two-hour long proceeedings, the CAB pleaded that the first report should be read with the second one and the allegation of cover up is proved if all the facts in the case are kept in mind.
Salve submitted that the apex court should consider its earlier judgement on CVC in which it was said that institutions' integrity must be maintained and going by that verdict, action should be taken against Srinivasan.
"Ceaser's wife has to be above suspicion. BCCI is not a statutory body but it is performing public function and it must come under judicial review," he said.
He urged the court to make public identity of players who were named as individual 2 and individual 3 in the Mudgal Committee report to end speculation regarding their identity. Salve submitted that he committed a mistake in earlier hearing by pleading to the court not to disclose the names but the entire Mudgal Committee report be made public now, a proposition which was stiffly opposed by BCCI.
The bench said that it will consider the plea to disclose the name of players on the next date of hearing and adjourned the case to November 27.