Narayanaswami Srinivasan has moved the Supreme Court seeking reinstatement as president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, contending that there is "absolutely nothing" in the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee report "incriminating" him in the IPL6 batting and match-fixing scam.
Simultaneously, India Cements, the company of which he is the Managing Director, has pleaded with the court not to pass any adverse order against the firm that could lead to cancellation of the franchise of Chennai Super Kings.
Srinivasan, who filed his objections to the final report of the committee in an affidavit, said he believes that the conclusion in the report clearly vindicates his stand that all allegations made against him were "completely false, baseless and motivated out of malice".
Further, the BCCI president-in-exile countered the findings of the panel that he along with four others Board officials did not take action against Individual 3 (player) despite being aware of his misconduct saying that the then president had dealt with the issue and he cannot be attributed with any inaction.
Srinivasan said he has been cleared of charges of betting, match-fixing or scuttling the investigation. The only observation in the report is with regard to "minor incident" involving 'Individual 3' which is nothing incriminating, he said, adding he may be allowed to resume his office as BCCI president from which he has been away for almost a year.
In a separate affidavit, India Cements, which owns Chennai Super Kings (CSK), contended that Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, who has been indicted in the report, is no way associated with the company.
It pleaded that any adverse order against India Cements could have "disastrous consequences" not only for the CSK but for the entire league, cricketers and those associated with the IPL.
"Under no stretch of imagination can Meiyappan be characterised as a person who is the ultimate controller of this company," India Cements said, adding "there is no infractions of the IPL code of conduct, rules and regulations that have been pointed out by the probe committee against the company or its employees in the present report," it said.
While urging that no adverse decision be taken against CSK, the promoter of the team said, "Now that the report has been filed and no adverse findings have been made as against this respondent or its employees, it is just and proper that the employees of this respondent be permitted to discharge their duties if any assigned to them by the BCCI."
Meanwhile, on the affidavits filed by BCCI and Ranjib Biswal, the office of senior advocate Nalini Chidambaram, who is representing CAB and its secretary Aditya Verma, said that the response to their objections would be filed on Monday when the matter will be heard by the court.
Verma said the affidavits filed by BCCI and two of its officials are only a "lame attempt" to misguide the Supreme Court and the public and the "cricket board is trying to cover up its own misdoings."
He said in the affidavit BCCI claimed that it took all necessary steps to reprimand 'Individual 3' for violating the players' code of conduct "but my question is how did the BCCI came to know about the identity of the 'Individual 3' when the Supreme Court did not reveal it?"
"The affidavit is meaningless. My petition was about the betting and spot fixing cases in the IPL 6. It has nothing to do with an incident in the Indian national team when Biswal was the manager," he said.
The BCCI had on Thursday refuted in Supreme Court the findings of the Justice Mudgal committee which probed the IPL spot-fixing and betting, that no action was taken against a player for his misconduct, saying he was "reprimanded".
The affidavit by the apex cricket body said that a BCCI working committee meeting was held on November 18 to analyse the report and it was deciphered that the incident was about the overseas tour in which Ranjib Biswal was the team manager.
The Mudgal Committee, which had submitted its report on November 17 had said that Srinivasan, along with four other BCCI officials, was aware of the violation of the Players Code of Conduct by the player but no action was taken by any of them. The player was not named in the report.