The BCCI had filed a counter-affidavit on the problem within the court in response to the plea by Sreesanth, World Health Organization had challenged the life ban despite a court dropping all charges against the 34-year-old pacer.
The cricket board had aforesaid, "The call of the sessions court to acquit the petitioner from the criminal charges has no impact any on the choice of the inner disciplinary committee of the BCCI to ban the petitioner from taking part in cricket tournaments union by the BCCI and/or its affiliates."
It had aforesaid the question before the court was whether or not the petitioner (and different accused) was at risk of incur penal consequences below relevant criminal statutes.
On the opposite hand, the question before the BCCI Disciplinary Committee was whether or not the petitioner was guilty of match fixing, corruption and gambling and violation of the inner disciplinary rules of the BCCI, the board had aforesaid.
The standard of proof needed below a penal statute was a lot of more than the proof needed for a disciplinary inquiry, it had aforesaid.
All the thirty six defendant, together with Sreesanth, Ankeet Chavan and Ajit Chandila were absolve within the spot-fixing case by a Patiala House court in July 2015.
The BCCI, however, had refused to change its disciplinary call even once the decision.