How brazen BCCI failed the test of judicial scrutiny

The Bombay High Court’s order that held the BCCI’s two-person probe into spot-fixing and betting charges in the IPL to be “illegal and unconstitutional” brings some sense to the proceedings, but it does not stop N Srinivasan from returning as president, say lawyers. “It means there is no clean chit for Gurunath Meiyappan or Raj Kundra,” Rahul Mehra, an activisit lawyer who has fought a number of cases against sports bodies in India, including the BCCI, told Firstpost. But in the event that Srinivasan returns as BCCI president despite the court ruling, “someone else will have to take the re-installing of Srinivasan to court [at that stage]," Mehra said. On Sunday, the BCCI announced that its two-member investigation into the allegations against Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra for betting on the IPL had exonerated both. The decision was widely condemned because the panel failed to speak to the Mumbai or Delhi police or collect any evidence that was in possession of law enforcement. [caption id=“attachment_996841” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  HC ruling aside, Srinivasan can return to the helm of affairs. AFP[/caption] Today, a PIL filed by the Bihar Cricket Association challenging the constitution of the panel was upheld. “Never come across this anywhere in the world where a police investigation is open but a sports body gives the people concerned a clean chit,” said Desh Gaurav Shekri, a sports lawyer. “From the start the whole process was questionable.” “How can they claim people are innocent without having an iota of proof?” The panel was originally a three-member panel, but was reduced to two when former BCCI secretary Sanjay Jagdale resigned because he did not want to be part of the process. However, instead of appointing a new third-member, the BCCI decided to stick with just two members. That also raises questions about what would happen if the two members disagreed with each other. “There should have been at least three members on the panel," Mehra said. At the time, there were questions about who had appointed the panel and whether the process followed the BCCI’s own constitution. The High Court has now determined that the board did not follow its own rules in appointing the panel. And because the formation of the panel was declared to be unconstitutional, its findings are also voided. “It has not withstood the test of judicial scrutiny,” Mehra said. The speed at which the panel concluded its work was also surprising, said the lawyers. According to Sekhri, it appears to have been rushed so that Srinivasan can point to the findings and return as president. “He can return because he broke no law," Sekhri said, “but they cannot say the findings are binding [on the board].” “It is surprising that they are so brazen.” The BCCI can, of course, challenge the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court. However, should the Supreme Court side with the High Court, the BCCI will have no option but to disregard the findings of the two judges. According to Mehra, the fig leaf will then have been removed. “What were legal experts like Arun Jaitley doing? Where was his constitutional mind? Is this is not a conspiracy of silence?” If the board either accepts the High Court decision or loses its appeal, it will have the option of convening a new panel to investigate the matter. While the PIL had asked the court to order a new probe, the court declined to do so. But Mehra pointed out there is nothing to stop the BCCI from going back to the rule book and appointing the same two people to the panel and conducting the same probe a second time. “Today there is no trust [in the BCCI], forget about a trust deficit. Even well-meaning things they do will now be taken with a pinch of salt.”