When the Supreme Court struck down a rule that allowed cricket administrators to also have commercial interests in the Indian Premier League and the Champions League, it must have triggered a feeling of deja vu for the Indian cricket board and its beleaguered chief N Srinivasan.

By a dissenting judgement in April 2011, Justice Gyan Sudha Misra (since retired) had quashed the rule, clearly saying that “the amendment was introduced not to promote the game of cricket but to promote the interest of Srinivasan.”

The two-judge bench had then given a split verdict on an appeal filed by a former BCCI president, AC Muthiah, against an order of the Madras High Court, which had declined to interfere with the amendment to rule 6.2.4. By the amendment, administrators were allowed to hold stakes in events like IPL.

While Justice JM Panchal had exonerated Srinivasan of the charge of conflict of interest and held the petition to be “thoroughly misconceived” with no “factual basis,” Justice Misra held unequivocally that Srinivasan’s “dual status” was impermissible.

“It is more than clear that without the amendment, Mr. Srinivasan would not have been entitled to participate in the (IPL) bid as he was a treasurer of the BCCI. Hence without the amendment he was not eligible even to participate in the bid and enjoy dual status of an office-bearer of the BCCI as treasurer and owner of Chennai Super Kings,” she had said.

The lady judge had noted that the amendment in 2008 was introduced with racing speed and without following the ordinary procedure, “diluting the entire effect of this salutary clause and reducing it to a dead letter.”

Justice Misra had, at that time, asked Srinivasan to choose between the IPL and BCCI. “Since Srinivasan has already participated and succeeded in the bid and is also owning Chennai Super Kings, it may be appropriate to leave it open to him to exercise his option whether he wishes to continue as an office-bearer of the BCCI or own IPL Chennai Super Kings.

In case Srinivasan opts to continue owning and operating IPL Chennai Super Kings, he shall be at liberty to do so but in that event he shall be restrained from holding any office in the BCCI in any capacity whatsoever,” she held.

The judge had also directed for suspension of operation of the amendment.

Owing to the split verdict by the two judges, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench to adjudicate upon this issue but it never happened. The case remains pending till date.