The general feeling among board members is that Srinivasan should have quit, paving the way for an interim president to initiate a clean-up operation.
But, with Srinivasan refusing to budge, there's very little BCCI members can do at this stage but go along with their hard-nosed chief.
The BCCI constitution allows its members to seek impeachment and oust its chief on grounds of morality, ethics and alleged conflict of interest.
But for that a special general Meeting (SGM) has to be called on the basis of a no-confidence motion. Such a motion can be moved by 10 signatories. It would require a two-third majority for the motion to go through.
The constitution allows the BCCI chief to cancel or postpone the SGM at his discretion. But, if impeachment is sought, it'll eventually come down to majority.
This is where a three-fourth majority would be required to show the president the door.
The BCCI may be a divided house, but Srinivasan enjoys enough clout to defeat any such motion that some frustrated members may dare to table.
Cheating case filed against Srinivasan
Acomplaint of cheating and breach of trust was filed against BCCI president N Srinivasan and other members of the cricket board before a court in Mumbai. Naresh Makani of the Jharkhand Cricket Association, requested the court to direct the police to register an FIR against N Srinivasan, his arrested son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, BCCI secretary Sanjay Jagdale, joint secretary Anurag Thakur, chairman Rajeev Shukla and vice president Arun Jaitley.
Times View
The BCCI and its president, N Srinivasan, are either unable or unwilling to see the obvious - if he remains at the helm and if the board appoints a panel to probe the Gurunath Meiyappan/Chennai Super Kings affair, there will be no public faith in the probe. The fact that two of the three members of the panel are not from the BCCI will not suffice, since Srinivasan and the board are the ones appointing this panel. The issue is not the integrity of the people on the panel. There is an obvious conflict of interest in the board appointing the body which will probe alleged wrongs by the son-in-law of the board chief. What we need is a truly independent judicial probe. The members of the commission could be decided, say, by the Union sports ministry and should be seen to have unimpeachable character. The probe must look not merely at whether Meiyappan was formally the owner of CSK, but whether he acted like a de facto owner, whether he was involved in spot fixing/match fixing, and if so what action needs to be taken against him or CSK. The findings of the panel must not be subject to vetting by the BCCI, but made binding on it. Such a process alone can help establish the credibility of the investigation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment