CSK's writ petition explained
What implications could Chennai Super Kings Cricket Ltd's writ petition have for the BCCI working committee meeting?
Nagraj Gollapudi
26-Aug-2015
The writ asks the court to quash the decision to suspend the Chennai Super Kings franchise • ESPNcricinfo Ltd
On Thursday, a two-judge bench of the Madras High Court will hear a writ petition filed by Chennai Super Kings Cricket Ltd, the owners of the Chennai Super Kings, asking for a stay on the decision taken by the Lodha committee to suspend the team for two years.
The following explainer clarifies the case along with possible consequences it might have on the BCCI working committee meeting on Friday where a final decision is expected to be taken on the Lodha panel's proposal to suspend Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals, both of whom were found guilty of infringing the code of conduct in the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
What is the petitioner's plea?
The petitioner filed a writ on August 17 asking the court to first put an interim stay on the Lodha committee decision, quash the decision to suspend the Super Kings franchise and ask the BCCI to reinstate it into the IPL.
The petitioner filed a writ on August 17 asking the court to first put an interim stay on the Lodha committee decision, quash the decision to suspend the Super Kings franchise and ask the BCCI to reinstate it into the IPL.
What is the petitioner's argument?
The basic premise is that the Supreme Court never asked the Lodha committee to determine the culpability of the franchise under the IPL Operational Rules, specifically Rule 4.1.1, which deals with failure to ensure that any team official does not violate any regulation.
The basic premise is that the Supreme Court never asked the Lodha committee to determine the culpability of the franchise under the IPL Operational Rules, specifically Rule 4.1.1, which deals with failure to ensure that any team official does not violate any regulation.
The petitioner cites that the Lodha committee was entrusted by the court with determining the quantum of punishment for Gurunath Meiyappan, a Super Kings team official held for betting in matches during the 2013 IPL, and also the franchise for violating the IPL's anti-corruption code of conduct.
The petitioner believes that the gravity of the offence warranted that such a high-power committee examine whether the franchise was guilty or not by scrutinising the findings of the Mudgal probe panel, which it had at its disposal.
What does IPL Operational Rule 4.1.1 say?
Each franchisee shall ensure that each of its team officials complies with the regulations, including without limitation, the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants (and the attention of franchises is drawn in particular to Article 2 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants for a list of offences under that Code). For avoidance of doubt, all of those persons who are accredited as representing the franchisee, whether accredited for the league by the BCCI either centrally or locally, shall be deemed to be a team official for the purpose of the regulation.
Each franchisee shall ensure that each of its team officials complies with the regulations, including without limitation, the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants (and the attention of franchises is drawn in particular to Article 2 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants for a list of offences under that Code). For avoidance of doubt, all of those persons who are accredited as representing the franchisee, whether accredited for the league by the BCCI either centrally or locally, shall be deemed to be a team official for the purpose of the regulation.
Who are the respondents in the case?
The BCCI is named as the first respondent and India Cements Ltd (ICL) as the second. (In April Chennai Super Kings Cricket Ltd got the rights from ICL to the Super Kings franchise, which was approved by the previous BCCI dispensation.)
The BCCI is named as the first respondent and India Cements Ltd (ICL) as the second. (In April Chennai Super Kings Cricket Ltd got the rights from ICL to the Super Kings franchise, which was approved by the previous BCCI dispensation.)
What was the court's response?
While asking for responses from the BCCI and ICL, the two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam said that they would like to first hear from the petitioner as to why the petition is maintainable if the Supreme Court had delivered the finding of guilt in case of Super Kings.
While asking for responses from the BCCI and ICL, the two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam said that they would like to first hear from the petitioner as to why the petition is maintainable if the Supreme Court had delivered the finding of guilt in case of Super Kings.
(The court said: "We would like to hear the concerned parties on the issue of maintainability of the petition first in the context of the relief sought in the past proceedings and orders passed by Honourable Supreme Court before we proceed to examine the issue on merits.")
How will a stay order affect the decision taken by the BCCI working group?
The general perception within the working group is that the writ will have no bearing on its decision. The BCCI working group, a five-member team lead by IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla, set up to decide on the suspension of Super Kings and Royals, is likely to make its recommendations to the IPL governing council late evening Thursday and then to the board's working committee on Friday in Kolkata. And hence the step to obtain interim relief is being perceived as a desperate step by Super Kings to stall the BCCI from taking the final decision.
The general perception within the working group is that the writ will have no bearing on its decision. The BCCI working group, a five-member team lead by IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla, set up to decide on the suspension of Super Kings and Royals, is likely to make its recommendations to the IPL governing council late evening Thursday and then to the board's working committee on Friday in Kolkata. And hence the step to obtain interim relief is being perceived as a desperate step by Super Kings to stall the BCCI from taking the final decision.
How is the Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) involved in this writ?
The CAB, which filed the original petition in the Bombay High Court in 2013 in the betting scandal, requested the court that it be allowed to implead - respond - in the case, too, considering it had been involved from the beginning.
The CAB, which filed the original petition in the Bombay High Court in 2013 in the betting scandal, requested the court that it be allowed to implead - respond - in the case, too, considering it had been involved from the beginning.
The main reason behind the CAB forcing itself in is because it feels the BCCI, which is one of the respondents, is unlikely to argue against the writ. The BCCI, CAB maintains, has never taken a stand against Super Kings in the past two years and is likely to once again remain quiet. In such a scenario, the CAB feels someone needs to highlight what it feels are misconceptions expressed in the writ with respect to the Lodha committee findings.
Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo