BCCI CEO Johri's position appears increasingly untenable

The return of Rahul Johri, Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, to India on October 29 won't be a happy one. He left for the US on leave after giving his written explanation to the Committee of Administrators post an accusation of sexual harassment in the previous place of work by a former colleague who preferred to remain anonymous. Johri denied the allegations. The victim's story was made public on social media by another individual. The two-member CoA, headed by Vinod Rai, instructed Johri to go on leave and submit an explanation within a week's time. Even as the CoA met twice post the submission—on October 20 and 22—news reports of five more 'victims' having come out with accusations against Johri came out.

It led to some hectic parleys internally within the CoA and the legal team while deciding on the latest accusations against Johri. The CoA, in a statement issued late on Thursday night, asked Johri to “remain on leave” till the three-member committee set up by it to look into the allegations submitted its findings and suitable action was taken.

But what it also stated was that there was a difference of opinion in the two-member CoA over the handling of complaints against Johri. While Diana Edulji was of the view that “since the CEO has such grave sexual harassment allegations against him, it would not be in the interests of BCCI and Indian cricket that he represents BCCI. In view of this she suggested that he resigns or his contract be terminated”. Rai “did not agree and felt that an independent inquiry was necessary as the tweet was anonymous”.

The Johri matter had already put Rai in a corner. While sending Johri on forced leave on the first complaint on social media, the CoA had also ensured he didn't go to Singapore to take part in the ICC meeting. The flurry of complaints emerged on a media website on October 23. Several BCCI members were already unhappy about the alleged attempts by the CoA to put a lid over an earlier internal complaint of harassment against Johri by a female staff member. As it turned out, post discussions with the complainant, she was transferred to another department. Edulji was, reportedly, of the view that the staffer should, by no means, think of quitting and, instead, should be rehabilitated and assured of a positive working environment within the BCCI. It is also reliably learnt that the complainant had given a written complaint and Johri had, reportedly, furnished a written apology before the matter was closed.

Also, while taking cognisance of the first #MeToo allegation, the CoA had reiterated not one but thrice that the allegations were made anonymously and related to previous workplace. “What was the need to do that? It appeared Rai, especially, was trying to be soft towards Johri,” said a seasoned administrator.

Johri's problems have undoubtedly increased, with the CoA including in the committee's ambit of investigations “all allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Johri while he was employed with the BCCI”. This was, reportedly, done on Edulji's insistence.

Many in the BCCI feel that an independent committee should have been set up when the first complaint against Johri surfaced internally. This, in hindsight, also appears to be a mistake by Rai. “How can the BCCI legal cell official advise the CoA to close the matter by taking written undertakings? The legal cell person is also technically subordinate to Johri,” said a senior administrator.

However, as per Nilay Dutta, senior advocate and acting president of Assam Cricket Association, setting up a committee now is the right legal step. “Apparently, everyone (those members who feel setting up of a committee is a sham) has forgotten law. The law states very clearly you need to set up independent committee. One can't kick someone out without inquiry. Besides, sending him on leave pending inquiry is as good as suspension.”

But there is a broad consensus within the BCCI that whatever may be the findings of the independent committee—and regardless of whether these findings stand the test of law—Johri's position as BCCI CEO has become untenable.

For an organisation powerful and rich, and in news for issues related to corruption, the Johri case is now one of perception. To have a CEO who has multiple claims of alleged sexual harassment against him, even if not proven, does no good for the organisation.

Secondly, it is a well-known fact that Johri has been facing acute opposition from BCCI members ever since the Supreme Court vested immense powers in the CEO while passing its orders on Lodha reforms in 2016 and 2017.

Seven state associations—Haryana, Gujarat, Saurashtra, Tamil Nadu, Goa, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka—shot off a letter on October 23 to the CoA demanding details of actions taken over the numerous complaints against Johri.

Johri was appointed during Anurag Thakur's tenure as BCCI president. Even then many in the BCCI believed his appointment was rushed and was not done with due diligence. He came from the television industry and was well-connected. As one BCCI veteran remarked, “He was in the right place at the right time—getting lucky with the appointment of a CoA by Supreme Court. It appears that luck has run out finally.”