The Supreme Court on Thursday raised some probing questions over the vanishing line between the India Cements, which own Chennai Super Kings in the IPL, and the BCCI as the administrator of the game, while also pitching suggestions whether N Srinivasan and others named in the Mudgal probe report could keep out of BCCI polls and actions be taken against CSK’s franchise.

Slamming the “vague” ownership pattern of CSK where people wore multiple hats, a bench of Justices TS Thakur and FMI Kalifulla sought details of shareholdings and composition of board of Directors of India Cements. Srinivasan is the vice-chairman and managing director of India Cements.

In a severe indictment of Srinivasan, the bench maintained that his “conflict of interest was obvious” since as the BCCI chief, it was his duty to ensure that the game remains clean but as a CSK owner, his interest was to see his team win the tournament.

The court said there could be no justification available after it is held by the probe panel that officials of his team were found involved in corrupt activities.

Deliberating upon the ownership pattern of CSK, the court asked various questions as to who was responsible to pick up members of the team and expressed its displeasure over answers given by the counsel of BCCI and Srinivsan as they attempted to distance the BCCI president in exile from decision making for CSK.

The court was told that the selection of team officials involved India Cements Board of Directors and that Srinivasan, his wife and their daughter, who is the wife of Gurunath Meiyappan were three directors.

“If there is no transparent method to select coaches and players, we can say that Srinivasan and Meiyappan picked them. If the ultimate controller of CSK is the company, which is controlled by the Board of Directors that include Meiyappan’s wife, we will assume that selection were done, if not directly then indirectly by Meiyappan,” remarked the bench.

It said: “As enthusiast as he is known to be, it is obvious that he will have inputs in team selection through his wife. All the decisions could have his inputs in that case. The real question for us is whether he was ultimate controller of the team or not regardless of whether he had any shares in India Cements or not.”

The bench also prodded the BCCI to take a “clear-cut stand” after the Mudgal probe panel report carried out a detailed inquiry and adduced its final report. “What decisions will you take with respect to the people named in the report? You can disqualify a team or take some other actions as contemplated under your rules. But you must take some actions. BCCI must put an end to all the controversy,” it said.

The court maintained that there were two aspects of the entire controversy now. First, what happens to the teams found involved in corrupt activities and second, fate of Srinivasan and Meiyappan. “Why should we take action. You must yourself take the decision first. We can sit here and examine your decisions. We will give you the time to decide but you must take some actions,” it said.

BCCI counsel CA Sundaram replied that he would need to take instruction from the board in this regard, while assuring that the BCCI was open to do the needful after giving persons concerned the opportunity to defend.

The bench also suggested that the election process for the Board should go ahead but the people whose names have cropped up in the Mudgal report should step aside and the new board should decide what actions are to be taken on the basis of findings of the report.

“Let all the persons involved in controversy step aside and election be conducted for the board and let the new board take a decision. There is election proposed for the entire board. The term of the board is over. If we are to deal with the present board, why not allow elections to be held and all those people who are involved should stand aside,” it said.

It further solicited views from parties if Mudgal panel could also be allowed to deal with the punishment against those found guilty of various charges in terms with the BCCI rules.

The bench has also sought to know what would happen if India Cement is barred as an IPL franchise and the kind of orders that could be passed against Srinivasan. The bench would resume its hearing on the petition by the Cricket Association of Bihar on Monday.