The Supreme Court of India has postponed to October 7 its (hopefully) final decision on a petition against the BCCI president-elect N Srinivasan.
Last week, the Cricket Association of Bihar(CAB) had filed a plea with the Supreme Court to stop Srinivasan from contesting the BCCI elections. On 27 Sep, a court ruling permitted Srinivasan to attend the board's annual general meeting and contest for the president's post, which he won unopposed on Sunday.
However, as per the ruling, Srinivasan could not take charge of the board pending the Court’s final decision on the matter.
The issue relates to conflict of interest questions the CAB raised in June 2013, in the formation of the two-member inquiry panel set up to inquire allegations of corruption in the IPL.
A Bombay High Court ruling later termed the probe panel "illegal". The BCCI and the CAB filed petitions in the Supreme Court against this order, with the CAB contending that the Bombay High Court could have suggested a fresh mechanism to look into the corruption allegations.
And the matter drags on. Personally I do not understand how the Judiciary is willing to get involved in issues relating to the internal working of what is essentially a Trust.
If a group of members in the board - Trust - are unable to accept the decisions by the majority of members, they should either shut up, put up (their papers), or else keep working to change the mood of majority - not try to get the Judiciary to do their (dirty) work.
If there is any act of criminal nature is suspected, they should approach the law enforcement agencies - not the Judiciary, whose function is to judge, not investigate.
If they suspect some decisions are contrary to moral and ethical standards, they should approach the appropriate bodies to take action - the Registrar of Trusts and Ministry of Sports, etc. - that is the executive - and not the Judiciary, whose function is justice, not day-to-day management of institutions.
(image courtesy indiatoday.intoday.in)
Tags: bcci,
Last week, the Cricket Association of Bihar(CAB) had filed a plea with the Supreme Court to stop Srinivasan from contesting the BCCI elections. On 27 Sep, a court ruling permitted Srinivasan to attend the board's annual general meeting and contest for the president's post, which he won unopposed on Sunday.
However, as per the ruling, Srinivasan could not take charge of the board pending the Court’s final decision on the matter.
The issue relates to conflict of interest questions the CAB raised in June 2013, in the formation of the two-member inquiry panel set up to inquire allegations of corruption in the IPL.
A Bombay High Court ruling later termed the probe panel "illegal". The BCCI and the CAB filed petitions in the Supreme Court against this order, with the CAB contending that the Bombay High Court could have suggested a fresh mechanism to look into the corruption allegations.
And the matter drags on. Personally I do not understand how the Judiciary is willing to get involved in issues relating to the internal working of what is essentially a Trust.
If a group of members in the board - Trust - are unable to accept the decisions by the majority of members, they should either shut up, put up (their papers), or else keep working to change the mood of majority - not try to get the Judiciary to do their (dirty) work.
If there is any act of criminal nature is suspected, they should approach the law enforcement agencies - not the Judiciary, whose function is to judge, not investigate.
If they suspect some decisions are contrary to moral and ethical standards, they should approach the appropriate bodies to take action - the Registrar of Trusts and Ministry of Sports, etc. - that is the executive - and not the Judiciary, whose function is justice, not day-to-day management of institutions.
(image courtesy indiatoday.intoday.in)
Tags: bcci,
No comments:
Post a Comment