What does the judgement mean for N Srinivasan?
He effectively has to choose between the BCCI and Chennai Super Kings. The court said he cannot contest in the next round of the board's elections until he gives up a commercial interest in Chennai Super Kings franchise. The good news for him, though, is that he has been cleared of the allegation that he covered up the investigation of betting charges against his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan.What does it say about conflict of interest?
It has held as illegal the amendment to Rule 6.2.4 permitting Administrators of BCCI to acquire or hold commercial interests in the IPL and Champions League T20. So BCCI officials will no longer be allowed to have a stake in franchises, for example.What does it mean for the BCCI?
The board has to hold elections within six weeks. It will probably have a new president, unless Srinivasan can cut his ties with CSK.What does it mean for the IPL?
They should be able to go ahead with their 2015 season as planned; both CSK and Rajasthan will be part of the tournament. First up, the auction - which has been put on hold pending today's judgement.What does it mean for Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals?
Their fate will be known at some point in the next six months. The court has set up a three-member committee of retired Supreme Court judges to decide on sanctions against them, as also against Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra.What did the court say today about Meiyappan and Kundra?
It held that they were officials of their two franchises - CSK and RR - and that they were involved in betting.What else will the new committee do?
It will "examine and make suitable recommendations to the BCCI for such reforms in its practices and procedures and such amendments in the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations as may be considered necessary and proper." Basically, it can rewrite the BCCI's constitution though it might not go that far.Did the court make any other significant observation?
Yes. In a declaration that could have far-reaching consequences, the court said that while the BCCI was a private body, it performed a public function and was therefore amenable to judicial law and review.