The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with BCCI's stand of barring N Srinvasan from participating in any of its meetings. The apex court said the Board was free to stick to its stand that he suffered from conflict of interest so long as a court of law upsets that opinion.
"We do not see any need for any clarification in our judgement of 22 January, which is self-expedient and also does not suffer from any ambiguity," a bench comprising Justices TS Thakur and FMI Kalifulla said, before which Srinivasan also withdrew his application seeking prosecution of BCCI Secretary Anurag Thakur for allegedly making false and misleading statements on affidavit about the adjourned 28 August meeting in Kolkata.
It declined to go into BCCI's contention that post-judgement restructuring of shareholdings of India Cement Ltd and CSK does not free Srinivasan of charge of conflict of interest.
BCCI's counsel and senior advocate KK Venugopal had argued that restructuring of shareholdings of India Cement Ltd and transfer of shares of CSK in the newly-formed trust by Srinavasan on 23 February, was a "sham transaction."
His argument was opposed by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who said BCCI's view to disqualify Srinivasan from participating in the board meeting was not passed through any resolution and was open to challenge.
However, taking note of the submissions of both sides, the bench said it was not going to deliberate on the development subsequent to its 22 January judgement.
"Having said that, BCCI is free to take a view about the subsequent development and free to stick to it so long as as a competent court of jurisdiction arrives at a decision to upset its view," the bench said, adding that "Srinivasan shall also be free to question the correctness of the view in court."
The bench, which said it was waiting for the committee headed by former Chief Justice of India R M Lodha to complete its work and submit its report on possible reform in BCCI, also refused to refer the issue of Srinivasan's alleged conflict of interest to the panel.
At the outset, the bench was furious that BCCI had moved the apex court for clarification on the development that arose after the judgement in which the petition was disposed of.
"Why did you come to this court for this type of clarification? We are not continously monitoring the developments in BCCI," the bench said, adding that BCCI was entitled to take a view on the development that has taken place after the delivery of its verdict.
"If they (Srinivasan) have a problem they will take a remedy. Your (BCCI) stand that Srinivasan still continues to suffer from disqualification due to conflict of interest is your view. Why do you want clarification?
"You are free to stick to your stand. If Srinivasan has problem, let him approach court...both of you are free to fight it out. Everytime you will come to this court if he will do something. Today he has one arrangement, tomorrow he will have another," the bench said and asked BCCI to withdraw its application, which was agreed to by its counsel.