New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s hearing of the Indian Premier League (IPL) spot-fixing inquiry resumes on Monday, of the report filed by the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee. The hearing of the report on corruption in the IPL is filled with a lot of upcoming possibilities. The fate of IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings, decision on Gurunath Meiyappan will be the major highlight today.
Also another interesting fact remains is that will the SC pave a way for N. Srinivasan to return as president of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)?
Last week, the BCCI decided to stand behind N Srinivasan and IPL COO Sundar Raman, after an emergency working committee meeting on November 18.
With the SC clearing Srinivasan of betting and match-fixing charges, the latter had sought the apex body to reinstate him as the BCCI president and to allow CSK to play in the IPL.
The Mudgal Committee, which had submitted its report on November 17 had said that N Srinivasan, along with four other BCCI officials, was aware of the violation of the Players Code of Conduct by the player, but no action was taken by any of them.
Srinivasan was indicted by a probe committee for not acting against an unnamed cricketer accused of misconduct while his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were found guilty of betting that could leave their teams CSK and RR in trouble.
The Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee, also came out with a severe indictment of IPL CEO Sunder Raman who it said knew of a contact of a bookie and had contacted him eight times in one season but did nothing about it.
Earlier, on 14th November, the SC had disclosed seven names that were probed by the Justice Mudgal Committee.
The big names included that of ICC boss N Srinivasan, his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, and Rajasthan Royals’ co-owner Raj Kundra. Meiyappan had already been indicted following an incident where a Forensic Science Laboratory in Mumbai confirmed his voice samples in a tapped conversation with another accomplice Vindoo Dara Singh.
Names of three active players were inadvertently mentioned initially. However, the honorable court decided to strike off their names considering the sensitivity of the issue and the possible far reaching implications of this disclosure on their career.
The hearing was further adjourned till November 24. All four people were asked to be physically present in the court for the next hearing.