SC verdict on IPL fixing, conflict of interest today; Srinivasan to know fate
The Supreme Court will pronounce its judgement on the IPL spot-fixing scam and a conflict of interest issue involving the Indian cricket board’s sidelined president N Srinivasan on Thursday.cricket Updated: Jan 22, 2015 13:27 IST
The Supreme Court will pronounce its judgement on the IPL spot-fixing scam and a conflict of interest issue involving the Indian cricket board’s sidelined president N Srinivasan on Thursday.
The verdict is expected after 2pm.
The country’s cricket administration found itself in the dock following alleged betting and spot fixing in the sixth edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL) in 2013.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has been waiting for this judgement, postponing its elections to be clear about Srinivasan.
On December 17 last year, a bench of justice TS Thakur and justice FMI Kalifulla had reserved its verdict on the matter in which several interim directions were passed since August 2013.
The key direction passed was the setting up of the three-member committee headed justice Mukul Mudgal, former chief justice of Punjab and Haryana high court.
Srinivasan, his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, Rajasthan Royals’ co-owner Raj Kundra and cricket administrator Sundar Raman were probed by the justice Mudgal committee, which found “some misdemeanour by certain persons” and indicted them in the IPL 6 scam.
The conflict of interest regarding Srinivasan came under scrutiny because he was not only the BCCI president but also the managing director of India Cements, the company which owned the IPL team Chennai Super Kings (CSK).
Srinivasan’s son-in-law Meiyappan, identified by the inquiry committee as a team principal for the CSK franchise, is accused of betting on games of the T20 cricket league.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court asked Srinivasan to keep himself away from the affairs of the IPL.
When the final report of the Mudgal committee was opened, the apex court had said the identity of the players should not be made public at this stage.
The court did not give details of the indictment or the misdemeanour or the persons who committed it.
The 35-page report referred to the players with numbers.