Srinivasan steps aside as BCCI president

Dalmiya to head the board in the interim

After staying defiant for some time in the face of mounting pressure to step aside, Board of Control for Cricket In India (BCCI) President

N Srinivasan on Sunday decided to discontinue discharging his duties as the board’s chief till the probe against his son-in-law, Gurunath Meiyappan, in the Indian Premier League spot-fixing case had been completed. Former BCCI president Jagmohan Dalmiya would conduct the day-to-day affairs of the board till then.

These decisions were taken at BCCI’s emergency working committee meeting here on Sunday.

Sources said Dalmiya’s name was proposed by BCCI Vice-President and Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley and his group.

They added, Dalmiya would not get a designation on the board and this arrangement would be temporary.

Pressure had started piling on Srinivasan to step down since Meiyappan’s arrest on May 24 for his alleged involvement in betting on IPL matches.

However, even as the BCCI chief sticks to his stand that he will not resign, he has agreed to step aside temporarily, pending enquiry.

Punjab Cricket Association President I S Bindra confirmed this arrangement was for one month and the BCCI working committee would meet every week during this period.

Also, BCCI Secretary Sanjay Jagdale and Treasurer Ajay Shirke, who had resigned on Friday, were asked to withdraw their resignations. They, however, turned down BCCI’s request, according to TV reports.

Bad precedent, says Srinivasan

On Sunday’s emergency meeting of the BCCI working committee was attended by 14 members and lasted for a little over two hours. Jaitley, Rajeev Shukla (who stepped down as IPL chairman yesterday) and BCCI Joint Secretary Anurag Thakur attended the meet through video conferencing.

It was learnt Srinivasan remained defiant during the meeting and blamed the media and politicians for raking the issue against him. He is also understood to have said his resignation would set a “bad precedent” and he could not be punished for his son-in-law’s involvement in a scandal.