Bcci Rules Aren't Sacrosanct, Exit Of A Team Won't Collapse Projects:

[timmy]

Tightening the noose around the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the Supreme Court said on Tuesday that rules of the BCCI are not sacrosanct and cricket projects in the country won't collapse with the exit of a team in the IPL spot-fixing case.

Clamping down on the IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings and its owner N Srinivasan, the SC said "purity of the game" is paramount, and it will do anything, including striking down rule 6.2.4 of the BCCI's Constitution, to keep cricket clean.

"BCCI needs to take it out of their minds that SC can't adjudicate on BCCI rules. Those aren't sacrosanct for us. You have to satisfy us as far as Rule 6.2.4 is concerned," the SC said on Tuesday.

Hearing the IPL spot-fixing case on Tuesday, the SC said BCCI has to satisfy the court on Rule 6.2.4 while asking if any other administrator runs a team. (Getty Images)

The BCCI, before the first edition of the IPL in 2008, had amended its Constitution to allow a board administrator to own a team in the cash-rich league. Srinivasan-owned India Cements then bought the Chennai team and named it the Chennai Super Kings.

That led to the issue of conflict of interest with Srinivasan being the BCCI president as well as owner of the CSK.

"For the purity of the game, if conflict of interest has to go, it will go. Heavens will not fall if administrators don't won teams. If the team goes, projects will not fall," the SC further said.

The SC then also asked the board to provide it details if any other administrator too owns a team and what will be the consequences of striking down Rule 6.2.4.

"Apart from CSK, is there any other team which is run by an administrator and why? Give us a list of all contracts which will fall because of striking down Rule 6.2.4," the SC said.

Earlier on Monday, BCCI's worries multiplied as the SC slammed IPL CEO Sundar Raman saying that he was enjoying the fun from the sidelines.

Raman, before yesterday (Monday), had said in his defence that YP Singh had informed him there were rumours about certain franchise owners indulging in betting. But the SC refused to buy his statements and concluded by adding that he should have risen above his own interest of protecting others as he did nothing and observed every bit of the misdoings by becoming a silent spectator, taking care of celebrities.