Even a clean chit may not save Srinivasan

[Malcolm Merlyn]

In comments which do not bode well for sidelined BCCI president N. Srinivasan, the Supreme Court on Monday questioned if he can be allowed to return to the Board’s helm of affairs if he gets a clean chit from the Mudgal panel, but his son-in-law and self-proclaimed Chennai Super Kings ‘team principal’ Gurunath Meiyappan is found guilty of betting and spot-fixing in IPL-VI. “There will be no difficulty if there is nothing against Srinivasan and his relative in the report, but what would happen if there are findings against his relative? "Won’t it be improper if there is even a remote suggestion that Srinivasan may have been involved in the cover-up? Does it not affect the image of the game? These are questions of propriety,†said Justice T.S. Thakur, who headed the Bench. The Bench posed this pointed question to Aryama Sundaram and Kapil Sibal, the senior lawyers representing the BCCI and Srinivasan respectively, while adjourning the hearing of the Mudgal report on the involvement of Srinivasan and 12 others in the scam, until November 14, on the grounds that it needed time to study the report. The comments, which virtually put Srinivasan’s fate in the balance, came when Sundaram urged the court to at least have a look at the conclusion of the report pertaining to Srinivasan. Sundaram argued that if Srinivasan has been given a clean chit, he can return to BCCI affairs and participate in the AGM slated for November 20, during which the presidential election will take place. A galaxy of top lawyers represented various parties during the crucial hearing. Besides Sundaram and Sibal, Harish Salve and Nalini Chidambaram (wife of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram) appeared for Aditya Verma, the secretary of the Cricket Association of Bihar which lodged the original petition. Ram Jethmalani’s son Mahesh represented CSK. Heated arguments ensued between Salve and Sibal when the former backed the bench’s view that Srinivasan should not be allowed to come back in the event of Meiyappan being indicted. “The first report had indicted Srinivasan for helping in corruption. Anybody helping in anybody’s corruption is equally guilty,†Salve said. Sibal then shot back and was promptly joined by Sundaram. They said the transcripts never gave an impression that Srinivasan tried to save Meiyappan. But Salve said: “Mudgal panel’s first report clearly says Srinivasan told the panel that his son-in-law had nothing to do with the cricketing affairs of CSK and was a mere cricket enthusiast supporting CSK so he could indulge in betting, while in fact he was the team principal.†Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2829177/Clean-chit-not-save-Srinivasan-SC-says-fate-BCCI-boss-hang-balance-Meiyappan-guilty.html#ixzz3JE7sSusF Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Supreme Court:hatsoff:

[kumar713]

Interesting

[velu]

expecting another KLPD for the OP soon :phehehe:

[Crookbond]

expecting another KLPD for the OP soon :phehehe:

If you keep quoting news sources like DailyFail, there is just one way it could go.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

If you keep quoting news sources like DailyFail' date=' there is just one way it could go.[/quote'] The same has been said by various news channels also.Also mail has quoted direct words by the judge.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

expecting another KLPD for the OP soon :phehehe:

The only KLPD is of Srini who keeps getting a pasting from the Supreme Court.

[velu]

The only KLPD is of Srini who keeps getting a pasting from the Supreme Court.

not sure .. latest news is he still the ICC boss and SC recently cleared him to contest again for BCCI post

[Malcolm Merlyn]

not sure .. latest news is he still the ICC boss and SC recently cleared him to contest again for BCCI post

WHEN?Do you have any source?SC has said that they wont clear Srinivasan.

[Vilander]

WHEN?Do you have any source?SC has said that they wont clear Srinivasan.

:giggle: too my dailymail ?

[Malcolm Merlyn]

:giggle: too my dailymail ?

Every newspaper have reported that SC judges when asked by Srini's counsel refused to clear him to fight elections till the case is over.

[Crookbond]

It is always good to post what exactly happened rather than to post what you think should have happened. SC has said they can't give clarity until the case is over. It has not refused Srinivasan from contesting BCCI AGM elections.

When asked by the BCCI lawyer about the court allowing Srinivasan to contest the BCCI election that are scheduled for November 20, Thakur said, "we cannot give clarity on whether you can contest or not until this matter is disposed of."

[Malcolm Merlyn]

It is always good to post what exactly happened rather than to post what you think should have happened. SC has said they can't give clarity until the case is over. It has not refused Srinivasan from contesting BCCI AGM elections.

Yes.So they have refused to clear him to fight elections until the court case is over.Srini through his lawyer wanted the court to clear him to contest elections on Nov 20.

[Crookbond]

Yes.So they have refused to clear him to fight elections until the court case is over.Srini through his lawyer wanted the court to clear him to contest elections on Nov 20.

You have a weird sense of reading comprehension. The SC says it cannot clarify, this doesn't equate to you can't contest. Once again, we all want Srinivasan to be taken to task but it doesn't mean we ignore words written in ink.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

You have a weird sense of reading comprehension. The SC says it cannot clarify' date=' this doesn't equate to you can't contest. Once again, we all want Srinivasan to be taken to task but it doesn't mean we ignore words written in ink.[/quote'] Srini wanted immediate permission from SC to contest elections which was refused by the court.

[Crookbond]

Srini wanted immediate permission from SC to contest elections which was refused by the court.

That was in April + September 2014 and was deferred because the probe was going on. Srinivasan can come back since the probe is done.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

That was in April + September 2014 and was deferred because the probe was going on. Srinivasan can come back since the probe is done.

No he cannot.Even on 14th NOV the counsel asked the SC to let Srini contest elections.But the Sc refused as the matter is in court.Thats why BCCI is postponing its AGM.

[Crookbond]

No he cannot.Even on 14th NOV the counsel asked the SC to let Srini contest elections.But the Sc refused as the matter is in court.Thats why BCCI is postponing its AGM.

On 14th November, the court said "It can't offer clarity" and that does not mean "Srinivasan cannot contest elections". It means SC can't offer clarity - I have already posted the relevant quote from the SC judge. Since you are hell bent on ignoring it, I can't help you.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

On 14th November' date=' the court said "It can't offer clarity" and that does not mean "Srinivasan cannot contest elections". It means SC can't offer clarity - I have already posted the relevant quote from the SC judge. Since you are hell bent on ignoring it, I can't help you.[/quote'] Since you cant seem to understand here is a report saying what i said. Since you also have the habit of calling other people's sources as flaky,here is the source. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/799695.html

[Crookbond]

Since you cant seem to understand here is a report saying what i said. Since you also have the habit of calling other people's sources as flaky,here is the source. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/799695.html

I don't call "other people's sources" flaky. I call "flaky sources flaky". I am still giving you the quote what the court said

When asked by the BCCI lawyer about the court allowing Srinivasan to contest the BCCI election that are scheduled for November 20, Thakur said, "we cannot give clarity on whether you can contest or not until this matter is disposed of."

Apparently, this seems to be open to interpretation since I don't know what "this matter" refers to. It can be the Srinivasan case or the entire IPL probe which in my mind is over since only hearings are left. However, I now seem to understand your point better and what you say might be the correct in your interpretation.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

I don't call "other people's sources" flaky. I call "flaky sources flaky". I am still giving you the quote what the court said Apparently, this seems to be open to interpretation since I don't know what "this matter" refers to. It can be the Srinivasan case or the entire IPL probe which in my mind is over since only hearings are left. However, I now seem to understand your point better and what you say might be the correct in your interpretation.

The quote has been interpreted as such by many media organisations.