IPL Scam Hearing: Supreme Court Wants BCCI to Take Action Against Gurunath Meiyappan

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Board of Control for Cricket in India to take punitive action against former Chennai Super Kings official and N. Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan. Meiyappan was indicted of betting during the Indian Premier League in 2013. The court also asked Srinivasan - the suspended chief of BCCI - to choose between the Board of Control for Cricket in India and CSK - a team owned by India Cements of which he is the managing director. (Maintain Purity of Cricket: BCCI to N. Srinivasan)

The Supreme Court was clear that it did not want to short-circuit BCCI's working machinery and offered four options to the BCCI:

1. Srinivasan steps aside and a BCCI committee takes a decision on Meiyappan

2. Two independent judges are appointed to look into the punishment for Meiyappan

3. The IPL Governing Council decides on punishment for Meiyappan

4. The Mudgal Panel decides what punishment to hand out to Meiyappan

Srinivasan was accused of taking no action against Meiyappan and now the apex court wants the BCCI to spell out how the former CSK official should be punished. "Want action against Meiyappan. What can be done to decide quantum of punishment? We don't want to bypass BCCI, announce punitive measures," the Court said on Tuesday. (Gavaskar, Ganguly, Shastri also have dual roles: Srinivasan to Supreme Court)

According to PTI, Supreme Court objected to Srinivasan attending Tamil Nadu Cricket Association meetings despite stepping aside as cricket administrator. (India Cements shares sinks due to IPL scam)

Srinivasan admitted it was a mistake and said he should not have attended the meetings.

Earlier on Monday, the Supreme Court observed that it is very difficult to accept N. Srinivasan's plea that there is no conflict of interest arising out of owning IPL team CSK and heading the BCCI.

A bench headed by Justice TS Thakur said that conflict of interest is equal to bias and even though actual bias may not be in the case but even likelihood of bias is important.

It said purity of cricket has to be maintained and all persons at the helm of its affairs should be above suspicion.

"Taking all circumstances in account, it is very difficult to accept your contention that there is no conflict of interest. You being MD of India Cements, India Cements owning CSK, an official of CSK involved in betting and you heading the BCCI," the bench, also comprising Justice FMI Kalifulla, told Srinivasan's lawyer Kapil Sibal.

Sibal, however, submitted that by that standard, conflict of interest is prevalent in every sphere of activities and noted that Hockey Federation and FIFA allow it.

The hearing will resume on Wednesday and could possibly last for an entire day.