By IANS,
New Delhi: Lalit Modi’s lawyer has dubbed the Indian cricket Board a ‘khap panchayat’ (caste council) after the case of the suspended chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) was
referred to the Board’s disciplinary committee by its secretary, N.Srinivasan, who found Modi’s replies to three showcause notices “unsatisfactory”.
Srinivasan Tuesday circulated a six-page report to the members of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on Modi’s replies to charges framed in three instalments, while the Modi’s lawyer Mehmood Abdi Wednesday questioned the legality of Srinivasan calling the Board’s Special General Meeting (SGM) on July 3.
Modi, who is now persona non-grata with the Board, took on both BCCI chief Shashank Manohar and Srinivasan for their omissions and commissions, making his replies read like a virtual counter chargesheet against the two top officials.
Srinivasan, in his letter to the BCCI members, stated that “upon careful consideration of the explanation, I am prima facie not satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown to drop further proceedings,” but he chose not to communicate the decision to Modi.
It is clear that Srinivasan wants the Board’s reconstituted disciplinary committee to summon the suspended chairman, following board chief Shashank Manohar recusing himself from heading the disciplinary committee after Modi asked him and BCCI secretary not to be part of the process to decide his fate as both are party to all IPL decisions.
The July 3 meeting will only constitute the disciplinary committee and if it decides to go along with Srinivasan’s report, Modi will be removed as IPL chairman and even expelled from the board. If he is expelled, then the decisions will have to be ratified by a SGM of the Board by a three-fourths majority.
Srinivasan’s report is more or less a reiteration of the chargesheet and outright rejection of Modi’s replies. The BCCI secretary maintans that there were irregularities in finalising some of the bids at the time of the launching of the IPL, rigging the two bids for the two new franchisees for the fourth edition in 2011, causing loss to the Board by renegotiating the TV rights by paying an $80 million facilitation fee.
While the disciplinary committee comprising Arun Jaitley, Chirayu Amin and co-opted member in place of Shashank will decide Modi’s fate, the IPL Governing Council meeting Friday will comb through Modi’s “questionable” deals which, Shashank and Srinivasan repeatedly stated, were entered into without the board’s knowledge.
The 15-point agenda include discussion on the WSG Mauritius and MSM deal, 150-second ad spots in IPL III, Nights parties and their media rights, award of ticketing rights to the IPL, expenses incurred by the IPL office housed in a Mumbai hotel and some other bills of Modi.
Modi’s lawyer Abdi took strong exception to Board sweeping his client’s charges against Srinivasan under the carpet.
“Now it is not a Lalit Modi and Srinivasan fight but evidence of the manner in which the country’s premier sport body is being administered. Complaints making serious charges against the Secretary have been made yet these are being swept under the carpet,” Abdi said in his statement.
“Whereas, President BCCI has reclused himself, the Secretary BCCI, despite being in an utterly questionable position, is calling the shots. Best of luck to the ‘khap panchayat’ of BCCI,” Abdi said in a statement.
Abdi questioned the July 3 SGM and called it an illegal exercise by Srinivasan.
“Convening of Special General meeting of BCCI by its Hony. Secretary N Srinivasan for ratification of his decision of referring the charges against Mr Lalit Modi contained in the three show cause notices to the Disciplinary committee of BCCI for further proceedings is only a cover up for inherent illegality committed by Secretary BCCI,” Abdi said.
Abdi pointed out that the Board’s rules make it clear that the secretary has to consult the president both before issuing a showcause notice and taking any action on the reply.
“While, the President BCCI, being an eminent lawyer had the grace to recluse himself from the matter, how could the Secretary BCCI decide to refer the matter to the disciplinary committee on his own and seek post facto approval of his decision by way of ratification by the General Body. It is like putting the cart before the horse,” Abdi said.