Full text: What Bombay HC said about Srinivasan & the BCCI

[caption id=“attachment_1000789” align=“aligncenter” width=“380”]  The BCCI could not explain to the High Court who exactly appointed the two judges to the IPL probe panel. AFP[/caption] The Bombay High Court’s judgement holding the BCCI’s panel investigating the IPL to be “unconstitutional and illegal” also throws up some interesting facts about the proceedings that led to the formation of the panel. The petitioner for the Bihar Cricket Association alleged that N Srinivasan had a hand in selecting the panel members but the BCCI and its lawyers did not address this allegation. “In the petitioner’s affidavit in rejoineder, it is specifically stated that there are no details as to who took the decision for the appointment of the commission,” the judgement states. “There is no sur-rejoinder. Respondent No 1 (the BCCI) never attempted to answer this issue even during the hearing before us.” The judgement goes on to discuss the process by which the judges were selected as described by Ratnarkar Shetty – general manager, games development – in his affidavit to the court. Shetty stated he had called the various Governing Council members to get their approval to appointment the two judges and Sanjay Jagdale to the panel. However, there is no mention of who recommended the judges in the first place. “The petitioner stated that there was no mention of the name of the legal advisor who recommended the names of the two Judges and where they were based. Despite the same, respondent No.1 (the BCCI) has not filed a sur-rejoinder or cared even otherwise to furnish the details. This would be necessary to refute the petitioner’s contention that respondent No.2 was responsible for the appointment of the members of the commission.” In other words, the BCCI did not even try to prove that Srinivasan had nothing to do with appointing the panel. The court even goes on to say that Srinivasan’s “continued connection with the [BCCI] only enhances the possibility of his having played a role in the formation of the commission”. The court also commented on how a seemingly vital issue like fixing was left to Shetty to handle and that the Governing Council members did not feel the need to talk to one another and discuss the panel before appointing its members. “We would have expected the Governing Council to have met and deliberated the issue at a meeting or at least by way of video conferencing. There is no explanation why they did not do so.” “Even the alleged ratification of the said Dalmiya’s decision to constitute a commission of the learned Judges alone is not supported by any documentary evidence.” Given how the BCCI went about creating the panel, and the lawyers’ refusal to address certain issues in court, the judges went so far as to suggest that the petitioner “has made out a prima-facie case that respondent No. 2 (N Srinivasan) was involved in the formation of the commission”. At he very least, the judges said, the BCCI had failed to prove Srinivasan had nothing to do with it. You can read the full court judgement, which runs to 61 pages, below.