BCCI free to interpret Srini’s ‘conflict of interest’: SC

"On the day we pronounced the judgment, he (Srinivasan) was in conflict of interest. You (BCCI) will have to take a view on whatever happened after that," said a bench of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla.

N. Srinivasan was perceived to be in conflict of interest for being the co-owner of the IPL team Chennai Super Kings and heading the BCCI.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was free to decide whether its former president N. Srinivasan was still in a conflict of interest situation and thus be barred from attending its working committee meetings as it refused to issue any clarification on developments that took place post its January 22 judgment.

The apex court had barred Srinivasan from attending working committee meetings of the BCCI in its January ruling since it felt that his dual role as co-owner of Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Chennai Super Kings (CSK) and board chief gave rise to a situation of conflict of interest. “On the day we pronounced the judgment, he (Srinivasan) was in conflict of interest. You (BCCI) will have to take a view on whatever happened after that,” said a bench of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla.

“You are free to stick to that (view) and you stick to that. We are not saying you are wrong. We are also not saying you are right,” they added.

Noting that most of the points resized by the BCCI were post its January 22 verdict, the court said: “Do you want an advance approval of your view (that Srinivasan continues to be in conflict of interest)? We are not concerned with it.”

The apex court bench in their January judgment had held that, “no one who has any commercial interest in the BCCI events (including Srinivasan) shall be eligible for contesting the elections for any post whatsoever.”

While refusing to issue any clarification on the plea by the BCCI on the status of Srinivasan, the bench however, said that if the 70-year-old was aggrieved by any of the board's views, he could raise it before an appropriate court.