The BCCI's sidelined president N Srinivasan will not be able to contest the election to any position in the board's annual general meeting, scheduled to take place in Chennai on March 2. Srinivasan's solitary role in the AGM - twice deferred already and being held on the orders of India's Supreme Court - will be as that of a nominee of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association sent in to cast the association's vote in the case of an election.

On Friday, Srinivasan, through his counsel Kapil Sibal, tendered an "unconditional apology" to the court for having chaired the BCCI's working committee meeting on February 8. The court called his action of chairing the meeting "a breach of the spirit" of its order, under which no one with a conflict of interest can have an administrative role in the BCCI.

Other than voting in the BCCI elections, Srinivasan can take no part in the AGM; the TNCA will have to either recommend an alternate representative or absent itself from the meeting. An attempt by the CAB counsel Nalini Chidambaram to shift the venue of the elections from Chennai to Mumbai was dismissed by the bench.

Aditya Verma, the petitioner in the IPL corruption case, had questioned Srinivasan's presence at the working committee meeting and, after issuing a legal notice to the BCCI and Srinivasan, filed a contempt petition to the Supreme Court.

The court had taken a strong objection to Srinivasan chairing the working committee meeting on Monday as it responded to the contempt of court plea filed by the CAB challenging the sidelined BCCI president's participation. Sibal requested the court to not issue a contempt notice, saying he would get a response from his client.

On Friday, Sibal started proceedings by arguing that the court's judgement did not bar Srinivasan from presiding over any of the board's meetings, and that it had only not permitted him to stand for a second term as president. Both the court as well as Chidambaram argued against that contention.

Sibal eventually admitted that Srinivasan was under the impression that he should follow the letter, and that he should have also followed the spirit of the judgement. He then issued an unconditional apology for presiding over any of the board's meetings in the past, which the court accepted.

Chidambaram then pointed out that the CAB contempt plea also challenged Srinivasan's participation in the working committee meeting. She explained the court's judgement had specifically made it clear that any administrator with a conflict of interest could not hold a position in the board. Since that applies to all past and present presidents of the BCCI's member associations, including the TNCA, Srinivasan will be barred from attending any of the BCCI meetings, including the AGM next week.

Sibal responded by drawing a distinction between Srinivasan as the TNCA president and Srinivasan as a nominee of the TNCA at the AGM. The court said that it was fine as long as Srinivasan was present at the AGM as a nominee of the TNCA for the sole purpose of casting his vote. The court also made it explicitly clear that Srinivasan could not preside over any of the board meetings in the future. Srinivasan will also have no say on any of the other decisions at the AGM, for which purpose the TNCA would need to send another representative.