The fact remains that, irrespective of the merits of the case, it stands to reason that as managing director of India Cements, which owns IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings, Mr Srinivasan was party to the decision to allow his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan to sit in the dugout.The ball, as they say, now lies in court. And only the Supreme Court can do this effectively in cases involving a closed society or cabal like the BCCI.The Supreme Court was inclined to point out the moral aspect by staying his functioning as president till all legal issues are resolved. The first is legal, which Mr Srinivasan manipulated by blocking everyone else from contesting for president. Also, the question remains whether he can continue as de facto China Windows Profiles Suppliers or de jure president depending on the Supreme Court’s directions in the case appealing against his right to stay in office.. There are two aspects to this. The second is a moral question. Unless it takes up BCCI matters in their entirety, a sham status quo will prevail with a coterie kept in clover by a manipulative quid pro quo process. Srinivasan has been re-elected for the third and last one-year term.BCCI president N. Irrespective of his clever ploy of “stepping aside”, the key legal issues behind such conflicts encouraged by the multi-billion-dollar cricket board must be addressed.The conflict of interest could not be greater in any case other than that of Mr Srinivasan: BCCI chief and MD of a company that owns an IPL team.