N Srinivasan's future as a top cricket administrator will be the main focus at Monday's Supreme Court hearing in the IPl spot-fixing case. The sidelined BCCI president and current ICC chairman has denied the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee's finding that he did not act on a player's code violation despite being aware of it.
Srinivasan, IPL COO Sundar Raman as well as team officials Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were directed by the apex court to file their affidavits in response to the adverse findings in the Mudgal report.
The panel had found that Srinivasan, despite knowing that Individual No. 3, assumed to be a very important player, had breached rules.
However, Srinivasan, who has been cleared of any involvement in fixing or any attempt at interfering with the probe, has asked the court to allow him to resume charge as the BCCI chief.
"Since the investigation by the panel is over and there is nothing incriminating against me, I must be allowed to take over as BCCI president," Srinivasan has said in his affidavit.
Raman is facing serious charges as the panel has concluded that he was in touch with a link to a bookie and also knew that Meiyappan, Srinivasan's son-in-law and a Chennai Super Kings (CSK) official, as well as Rajasthan Royals co-owner, Kundra, were involved in illegal betting. In his affidavit, Raman has said making those phone calls does not necessarily mean he is guilty.
{{/usCountry}}Raman is facing serious charges as the panel has concluded that he was in touch with a link to a bookie and also knew that Meiyappan, Srinivasan's son-in-law and a Chennai Super Kings (CSK) official, as well as Rajasthan Royals co-owner, Kundra, were involved in illegal betting. In his affidavit, Raman has said making those phone calls does not necessarily mean he is guilty.
{{/usCountry}}Having postponed its annual general meeting to December 17, Srinivasan's supporters will be anxious that there is some kind of closure so that the Chennai businessman can seek re-election. Justice Mudgal has said he would leave it to the court to interpret his findings.
The court can also give its views on the nine names of players in the report - 13 persons in all were investigated - it has decided not to make public.