Supreme Court rejects BCCI’s curative plea on conflict of interest issue

The Supreme Court has dismissed the curative petition filed by BCCI against the 2015 verdict by which it had struck down the controversial amendment of a rule which permitted cricket board administrators to acquire or hold commercial interest in events like the Indian Premier League (IPL) and Champions League.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the curative petition filed by BCCI against the 2015 verdict by which it had struck down the controversial amendment of a rule which permitted cricket board administrators to acquire or hold commercial interest in events like the Indian Premier League (IPL) and Champions League.

A file photo of the BCCI logo outside their office in Mumbai.(REUTERS)

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had moved the apex court after its review petition against the January 22, 2015 verdict was rejected on September 29 last year.

“We have gone through the curative petition and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this court in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra & another. Hence, the curative petition is dismissed,” a bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justices J S Khehar and Dipak Misra said.

The apex court had dismissed BCCI’s plea seeking a review of its verdict in which it had held that the amendment of rule 6.2.4 was the “true villain” of the situation leading to conflict of interest arising in IPL format between an administrator’s duty and the commercial interest.

On January 22 last year, the apex court, in its 138-page judgement, had said that conflict of interest was one area which appeared to have led to the confusion and it raised “serious misgivings” in the mind of the public regarding the manner in which BCCI was managing its affairs.

The apex court had declared as “void and ineffective,” the amendment in 6.2.4 of the BCCI rules which had enabled N Srinivasan to acquire the IPL team, Chennai Super Kings.

The verdict had said the provision in the rule “clearly negates the declarations and resolves of BCCI by permitting situations in which conflict of interest would grossly erode the confidence of the people in the authenticity, purity and integrity of the game”.

The court had also noted that it would not be correct to say that there was no possibility of any conflict of interest arising in IPL format between an administrator’s duty and the commercial interest, if any, held by such person.

Terming as unfortunate the amendment of rule 6.2.4, the bench had said, “It clearly negates the declarations and resolves of BCCI by permitting situations in which conflict of interest would grossly erode the confidence of the people in the authenticity, purity and integrity of the game.”

The January 22 judgement was passed on the plea filed by Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB), filed through its Secretary Aditya Verma.