Warring Rai, Edulji, BCCI members to request SC to appoint ombudsman

Agitated BCCI members shoot off letters to acting secretary to convene SGM soon

rahul-pandya-kwk-file K.L. Rahul (left) and Hardik Pandya

While differing over controversial BCCI CEO Rahul Johri's role, Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji, warring members of the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators have agreed to request the Supreme Court to appoint an ombudsman during the upcoming hearing on January 17 to adjudicate over the matter related to cricketers Hardik Pandya and K.L. Rahul. For once, even the BCCI and state association members concur that the apex court should appoint an ombudsman for their hearing.

Both Edulji and BCCI members are against Johri conducting the inquiry against the two players. They are also against the appointment of an ad hoc ombudsman for this matter as it makes BCCI look selective while conducting inquiries of similar nature.

The Board members have finally decided to take key cricket administrative decisions in their hands rather than obstruct or be in denial about reforms, allowing cricket administration to remain in a state of flux.

In a fresh round of accusatory and contradictory email exchange between Rai and Edulji, the former chose to have the last word on the matter of the ombudsman, saying, “The CEO must fulfil his duty as per Rule 41(C) and conduct the inquiry after receiving the explanation of the players. He must ensure that the norms of natural justice are fulfilled.

“During the 17th hearing, we request the Hon. Court to appoint an Ombudsman. It may be recalled that we had requested the BCCI general body to take a decision on this appointment, in fact a panel of names was also sent to them. When they chose not to appoint, we approached the Hon. Court for an appropriate appointment. However, in the unlikely event of the Hon. Court not being able to appoint the Ombudsman in the hearing scheduled for the 17th Jan, 2019 we must go ahead and appoint an ad hoc ombudsman as per legal advice received by us. The Ombudsman, so appointed, can take a final view on the players based on the inquiry report submitted by the CEO.... I am requesting the CEO, to fulfil the duty as assigned to him, under the regulations on this. I request you to appreciate this approach.”

Edulji and BCCI members are vehemently opposed to the idea of Johri conducting the inquiry given that he was subject to a sexual harassment-related inquiry himself not very long ago. Edulji is also against the appointment of an ad hoc ombudsman.

To ensure this, BCCI members have shot off letters to the acting secretary Amitabh Chowdhary asking him to call an SGM. As per the new BCCI constitution, “an SGM can be requisitioned signed by not less than 10 full members specially stating the business to be transacted at such meeting. No business other than the one for which the SGM is called will be transacted at such meeting”.

Said one seasoned state cricket administrator, “Charges against the CEO were far more serious than against the players. How can he conduct the inquiry?” Members say that they, too, will request the Supreme Court on the day of the hearing to appoint an ombudsman at the earliest. As per the new constitution, the CEO cannot go beyond what he has done till now.”

However, both CoA members continue to differ over the need to hold an inquiry quickly until the process is resolved. Edulji, accusing Rai of selective reliance on rule book, said, “The decision of suspension was a collective decision of CoA and office-bearers. Whenever a suspension takes place, it is only sensible that the players in question are not part of the team and are called back for inquiry proceedings. There is no delay. We have given them seven days to respond to the notice. Then why are you insisting inquiry must be completed before 3rd ODI?”

Rai denied these accusations in his email, saying players have been shamed and suspended but it is not the job of CoA to end their careers. “Please be assured that the desire to conduct the inquiry is not from a desire to ‘cover up’. The interest of cricket has to be borne in mind. The off the ground act of the players was deplorable. It was crass as I said immediately after reading the comments. However, BCCI is not in the business of ending young careers for ‘off the ground’ activities. It is our responsibility to reprimand them, take corrective action, sensitise them of their misdemeanour and then get them back on to the ground once they have suffered the consequences. We have shamed them by recalling them from an ongoing tour. We have suspended them from further games. We need to correct them and not bring their career to a cul de sac by indefinitely delaying a decision. These misdemeanours require swift action, with a corrective approach.”

The selectors have already named the replacements for the duo for the remaining ODIs against the Australia and New Zealand ODI and T20 series.