Modi rejects IPL probe panel a second time


Afp July 06, 2010

NEW DEHLI: Suspended Indian Premier League boss Lalit Modi intensified his battle with the country’s cricket chiefs by demanding that the panel probing him be changed again.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) appointed a three-man disciplinary committee last week to probe charges of corruption, indiscipline and money laundering against Modi.

Modi, however, rejected the appointment of Chirayu Amin on the panel, saying the businessman may hold a grudge against him, reported the Press Trust of India (PTI) reported.

“It was Modi who had disclosed publicly that Amin was an investor who formed a part of the Pune consortium that made an unsuccessful bid for the two franchises this year,” a notice sent to the BCCI by Modi’s lawyers said.

Amin, one of the five vice-presidents of the BCCI, was named interim IPL chief after Modi was suspended.

Lawyer-politician Arun Jaitley and junior federal minister Jyotiraditya Scindia are the other members of the disciplinary committee.

Scindia was appointed last Saturday after BCCI president Shashank Manohar opted out when Modi also accused him of bias. The BCCI, owner of the hugely popular IPL, suspended Modi after the third edition of the tournament ended in April following the raft of allegations against him, which also sparked a government investigation.

Modi, 46, has submitted written replies to the charges that include rigging bids, holding proxy stakes in teams and receiving kickbacks in return for broadcasting deals.

He is also accused of planning an IPL-style league in England without the knowledge of the BCCI or the England and Wales Cricket Board.

Modi has also been suspended as a BCCI vice-president and removed as chairman of the T20 Champions League, a separate club tournament organised jointly by India, Australia and South Africa.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 7th, 2010.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ