Dhoni was misunderstood or he was under some pressure: Harish Salve

Harish Salve, the lawyer for Aditya Verma, the petitioner in the Justice Mudgal Committee report case, pointed out that it is there in black and white in the committee report that Dhoni tried to cover-up Gurunath Meiyappan’s role in Chennai Super Kings. “The report records that Mr Srinivasan, MS Dhoni, vice-president of India Cements, and other officials who appeared before the committee insisted that Meiyappan is only a cricket enthusiast,” Salve told CNN-IBN. [caption id=“attachment_1455335” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Have MS Dhoni and N Srinivasan become too cozy? Reuters[/caption] “The committee found Meiyappan would sit in the team dug-out. Surely Dhoni knew that. The committee found Meiyppan would bid for players at auctions. He might even have bid for Dhoni. Surely Dhoni knew that.” Salve went on to point out that the definition of corruption in the BCCI’s own anti-corruption code includes a cover-up, and on those grounds the BCCI should be summoning Dhoni for questioning, not defending him. The BCCI, by defending Dhoni, is again compromising its position," Salve said. “It is supposed to be the disciplinary authority. If someone has made a wrong statement, the BCCI should call him and ask him why he said this.” Salve said he had no idea why Dhoni had chosen to go before the committee and give a false statement. “One of the things I have been arguing in court is that there has to be an independent disciplinary inquiry into the disclosures about the Franchisees and others, Salve said. “Either Dhoni didn’t give that response or he was misunderstood or he was under some pressure” Dhoni also could have refused to go before the committee and unless there is some inquiry, we will never know the truth, Salve said. He also pointed out to Rajdeep Sardesai that this all stems from the conflict of interest that is rampant within the BCCI. “The BCCI lawyer submitted to the committee that even if you hold Meiyappan guilty, do not inflict any punishment on CSK. So the disciplinary instrument is saying don’t discipline.” “There are so many conflicts of interest in the BCCI – economic interest and the membership of BCCI is going hand-in-hand.” Salve referred back to the original BCCI probe that appointed to retired Tamil Nadu High Court judges to investigate the allegations against Meiyappan, CSK, Raj Kundra and RR. That probe did not meet any witnesses, gathered no evidence, only spoke the BCCI, and concluded everyone was innocent. “When the Bombay High Court asked how the BCCI appointed the committee, The BCCI was not able to answer,” Salve said. According to Salve, the BCCI cannot hold itself outside of the principles or probity even though it claims to be a private body. Whether it likes it or not, the BCCI does perform certain public functions. “The constitutional right of cricketers to play a sports is in their hands. The right of fans to watch the game is in their hands.” Salve said he has argued for an investigation into the allegations of sport-fixing in the Mudgal Committee report, including the allegations that a match between CSK and RR was fixed last season. He believes it would take a situation where people can be taken into custody and interrogated to get to the bottom of all this. “The trouble is you have an intransigent BCCI. Instead of organisation who feels it is more sensible to sacrifice one tournament and save the integrity of the sport, you have a BCCI where personal interest and cricket interest have completely merged. They are seamless.” The issue at hand is institutional integrity, not a particular individual, Salve said. “Ceasar’s wife must be above submission. Is that the standard to apply to the BCCI? Is that someone with money who can corner corner should head the organisation or is it people with credibility who want to serve the sport? “You have to live by standards. We all have to live by certain standards.” Below are the relevant portions of the Mudgal Committee report. The first mentions MS Dhoni’s testimony. The second is the conclusion the committee came to on Gurunath Meiyappan. - Representatives of India Cements, who appeared before the Committee, contended that Mr. Meiyappan had no share holding in India Cements and hence cannot be considered as an owner of CSK. Further, Mr. M.S. Dhoni, Mr. N. Srinivasan and officials of India Cements took the stand that Mr. Meiyappan, had nothing to do with the cricketing affairs of Chennai Super Kings and was a mere cricket enthusiast supporting CSK. (page 12) - After interacting with several persons who were/are part of CSK, former and current players who have participated in the IPL, administrators who have been involved in the IPL, persons representing other IPL teams, cricket commentators and sports journalists, the Committee is of the considered opinion that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan formed an integral part of Chennai Super Kings and most persons viewed him as the face of the team. Though the de-jure ownership vests in India Cements, the Committee finds that Mr. Meiyappan was in fact acting as a team official if not the defacto owner of CSK. (page 17)