JOIN USTo a direct question by a bench of Justices JM Panchal and Gyan Sudha Mishra, BCCI’s advocate CS Sundaram said, “It is not possible. It is in an advanced stage. It is a fact-finding and an internal committee. We cannot have external members in it.”
The bench had asked the BCCI, “Can you reconstitute a disciplinary committee?”
Modi’s advocate Ram Jethmalani argued that there was reasonable apprehension that Modi would not get a fair deal before the present committee which was biased against him.
“The present committee consisting of Jyotiraditya Scindia, Chirayu Amin and headed by Arun Jaitley is clearly biased,” said Jethmalani. Elaborating his arguments, Jethmalani said Jaitley was clearly biased as he had advised BCCI president Shashank Manohar on March 7, 2010 even before the meeting of the Governing Council that the bid was rigged to favour Adani and Videocon.
“I want people with a clean slate,” he submitted and contended that Amin, involved in the decision to issue showcause notices and later named Modi’s successor as the IPL chairman, could not be a member of the disciplinary committee.
Modi has filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the July 15 judgement of the Bombay High Court which dismissed his plea to stay the proceedings by a BCCI-appointed disciplinary committee probing allegations of financial irregularities against him. He has sought the removal of Jaitley and Amin from the three-member committee contending that they are likely to be biased against him.
Jethmalani said he was only seeking a direction from the apex court that BCCI should appoint a retired judge of the apex court or the High Court or any senior advocate as members of the disciplinary committee but not those from the cricket board. However, BCCI said it was not possible to include members in the committee from outside as it was not in the BCCI constitution.