New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday set aside the BCCI disciplinary committee’s order imposing a life ban on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth for his alleged involvement in the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal.A bench comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and K M Joseph said the disciplinary committee of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) may reconsider within three months the quantum of punishment to be given to Sreesanth. The bench made it clear that the former cricketer will get the opportunity of being heard by the committee on the quantum of the punishment. Also Read – Squadrons which participated in Balakot air strike awarded citations on IAF DayThe apex court also said that its verdict shall have no effect on the criminal proceedings pending against the former cricketer in the Delhi High Court, where the Delhi Police has challenged a trial court’s order discharging all accused, including Sreesanth, in the IPL spot-fixing case. The bench passed this order on Sreesanth’s plea challenging the decision of a division bench of the Kerala High Court which had restored the life ban imposed on him by the BCCI. Also Read – Don’t use ‘lynching’ to defame India: BhagwatA single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court had lifted the life ban imposed on the 35-year-old cricketer by the BCCI and had set aside all proceedings against him initiated by the board. Later, the division bench of the high court had restored the ban on a petition filed by the BCCI against the single-judge bench’s order. The BCCI had on February 28 told the apex court that the life ban imposed on Sreesanth was “fully sustainable in law” as he had “tried to influence” a match. Sreesanth’s lawyer had countered the arguments and had told the court that no spot-fixing took place during the IPL match and allegations levelled against the cricketer were not substantiated by evidence. Senior advocate Parag Tripathi, appearing for the BCCI, had referred to the recorded telephonic conversations in the matter and told the court it was clear that money was demanded and was “probably received” also.