Srinivasan seeks reinstatement as BCCI chief
N Srinivasan on Friday passed the buck to his colleague Shashank Manohar for not acting against the player, referred as Individual 3 in the Justice Mukul Mudgal committee's report, allegedly found to have indulged in illegal activity.cricket Updated: Nov 22, 2014 01:42 IST
N Srinivasan on Friday passed the buck to his colleague Shashank Manohar for not acting against the player, referred as Individual 3 in the Justice Mukul Mudgal committee's report, allegedly found to have indulged in illegal activity.
Srinivasan has asked for his reinstatement as BCCI chief on the ground that he wasn't the head of the cricket body at the time of the alleged incident. Rajasthan Royals (RR) team owner Raj Kundra too contested the probe panel's findings against him.
The Mudgal committee has indicted Srinivasan for not acting against a cricketer allegedly involved in betting. It rejected the claim made by Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and held he was the owner of Chennai Super Kings (CSK). Kundra had indulged in spot-fixing during IPL 6, the committee had held. The Supreme Court will consider the affidavits on November 24.
Srinivasan defended himself in an affidavit filed in response to the committee's report before the Supreme Court. He said Manohar was the board president then and that he was the secretary. According to him, the probe panel has given him a clean chit.
He claimed the infraction suggested by the board against the player had nothing to do with fixing, betting or gambling and that Manohar had reprimanded him. His affidavit did not explain the aberration nor mentioned the time of the alleged occurrence.
Srinivasan drew support from BCCI's affidavit, asserting the then-board president had issued a warning against the errant player.
Kundra too defended himself before the top court. He has offered to give up his stake in the IPL team until a clean chit is given to him.
In his affidavit, Kundra said the Mudgal committee report contained conclusions but "doesn't contain materials on which conclusions are based." He said he was unable to defend himself in the absence of evidence. Kundra has challenged the committee's findings. He too relied on BCCI's affidavit saying reprimand was issued to the individual cricketer.
The Super Kings and Royals, facing a possible ban from playing in future IPLs in the wake of report, distanced themselves from their respective promoters. CSK reiterated their earlier argument that Meiyappan was neither an employee nor a shareholder and even assuming he was so, the CSK cannot be disenfranchised from the tournament as the franchise itself was not involved in unlawful activities.