The Supreme Court issued notices to disqualified cricket administrators N. Srinivasan and Niranjan Shah for attending the Special General Meeting on June 26 as nominees of their respective state associations.
The lawyers of the two officials accepted the notice and the matter was adjourned till July 24, two days before the next Special General Meeting of the BCCI is scheduled to be held in New Delhi. The notices were in response to the stinging reports submitted by the Committee of Administrators in which they had accused the two of causing disruptions in the meeting in an attempt to stall the adoption of the reforms recommended by the Supreme Court-appointed Lodha panel.
CoA counsel Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas submitted five CDs of audio recordings of the meeting and transcripts to Justices Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud.
Amicus curiae Gopal Subramanium alleged that both Srinivasan and Shah had “hijacked the SGM” held in Mumbai. Subramanium told the court that a consensus was almost arrived at between BCCI members to implement the Lodha reforms, but Srinivasan objected to it, saying, “We cannot implement any part of the Justice Lodha Committee recommendations as associations have filed applications in the Supreme Court.” Subramanium vehemently objected to the duo attending the SGM despite not being the office-bearers of their state associations or the BCCI. “Look at the travesty of it. Thirty per cent of the conversation is dominated by Srinivasan manipulating the agenda,” he pointed out.
Taking a dim view of their presence, Justice Misra said, “Office-bearers cannot nominate a disqualified person to the general body meeting.” This led to protests from Kapil Sibal, who is appearing for Tamil Nadu Cricket Association.
A plea was made to the Special Bench to issue a contempt notice to the duo but Justice Misra ruled it out saying, “Not interested in contempt. Issuing a contempt notice will be like bowling a wide. It's a matter of law.”
Alleging subterfuge, the amicus curiae pointed out to the court how the disqualified members were able to attend and manipulate meetings by being nominated as representatives of their state associations. Srinivasan's counsel Sibal objected to this allegation saying, as member of the TNCA, he was allowed to attend the meeting and that right cannot be taken away. The issue of reforms process being stalled led to some sharp exchange of words between the counsels of Srinivasan and the CoA.
Subramanium informed the court that “all assurances of consensus building in BCCI [by the CoA] have held out till now”.
The report of the special committee, which was formed by the BCCI to pinpoint three difficult areas of implementation, was brought to the notice of the court. However, the report submitted to its acting president C.K. Khanna has not yet been ratified by the board.
Subramanium also submitted the resignations of CoA members Vikram Limaye and Ramachandra Guha to the court. The bench relieved them of their duties as members of CoA with immediate effect.
He also submitted to the court a sealed envelope comprising six names, of which two were sportspersons, to replace the members who had resigned. The court has allowed Sibal to submit four names in a week's time.
The plea by the state associations to recall the original judgement will now be heard separately on August 5. The Union government, meanwhile, vociferously argues for the original judgement passed by then CJI T.S. Thakur to be recalled on account of government institutions like Services, Railways and universities losing its full membership status.
