The Supreme Court has deferred to March 25 the hearing on the case relating to corruption in the IPL, including arguments over the findings of the Mudgal Commission report, which was submitted to the court on February 10.
The BCCI, one of the respondents in the case, had requested the court to keep to itself the contents of a sealed envelope handed over by the Mudgal committee to the two-judge bench of AK Patnaik and JS Khehar. The report said the committee had come across "many allegations of sporting fraud" and had forwarded the allegations in the sealed envelope - to be opened and read only by the judges - "in view of the sensitive nature of the information being provided".
The BCCI's submission was that the court not divulge the contents of the envelope as such a step could potentially cause "damage to the "reputation" of cricketers and the BCCI.
"It is most humbly submitted that the material contained in the sealed cover remain with the Hon'ble Court and not be released to the parties," the BCCI's submission said.
"Speculative and baseless charges against leading cricketers have already been made by unscrupulous news channels under the guise of "Sting Operations". Speculation is rife that the sealed cover contains names of some current member of the National Team. The Hon'ble Court would kindly take steps to staunch any further damage to the image under reputation of innocent cricketers and the BCCI by passing appropriate orders and thereby render justice," the BCCI said.
In the 33-page response, the BCCI agreed with the most of the recommendations made by the Mudgal committee. There were two notable objections: One, that the IPL be run as a standalone commercial entity with a governing body formed by franchise representatives, BCCI members, broadcasters and independent professional directors. The BCCI disagreed, saying it was not prudent to have members on the governing body who were not part of the BCCI and who may have "representative interests other than the aims and objectives of the BCCI". Another important recommendation it rejected was to avoid employment of players by the companies owning the franchises they played for...
The BCCI, one of the respondents in the case, had requested the court to keep to itself the contents of a sealed envelope handed over by the Mudgal committee to the two-judge bench of AK Patnaik and JS Khehar. The report said the committee had come across "many allegations of sporting fraud" and had forwarded the allegations in the sealed envelope - to be opened and read only by the judges - "in view of the sensitive nature of the information being provided".
The BCCI's submission was that the court not divulge the contents of the envelope as such a step could potentially cause "damage to the "reputation" of cricketers and the BCCI.
"It is most humbly submitted that the material contained in the sealed cover remain with the Hon'ble Court and not be released to the parties," the BCCI's submission said.
"Speculative and baseless charges against leading cricketers have already been made by unscrupulous news channels under the guise of "Sting Operations". Speculation is rife that the sealed cover contains names of some current member of the National Team. The Hon'ble Court would kindly take steps to staunch any further damage to the image under reputation of innocent cricketers and the BCCI by passing appropriate orders and thereby render justice," the BCCI said.
In the 33-page response, the BCCI agreed with the most of the recommendations made by the Mudgal committee. There were two notable objections: One, that the IPL be run as a standalone commercial entity with a governing body formed by franchise representatives, BCCI members, broadcasters and independent professional directors. The BCCI disagreed, saying it was not prudent to have members on the governing body who were not part of the BCCI and who may have "representative interests other than the aims and objectives of the BCCI". Another important recommendation it rejected was to avoid employment of players by the companies owning the franchises they played for...
Source: Cricket News
No comments:
Post a Comment