Hardik Pandya, KL Rahul's immediate future at stake as CoA spars over probe committee to solve sexism episode

Vindo Rai has instructed BCCI CEO Rahul Johri to carry out a preliminary inquiry, but Diana Edulji wants otherwise. Edulji, who forms the other half of CoA, wants a permanent appointee to probe the case.

FirstCricket Staff, Jan 14, 2019 18:30:10 IST

The fate of Hardik Pandya and KL Rahul hangs in thin air as the two members of the Committee of Administrators are again at loggerheads over the approach to conclude the issue. Both Hardik and Rahul on Monday tendered "unconditional" apologies for their sexist comments during a TV chat show.

However, as per a report in Cricketnext, one half of CoA, Vinod Rai, is in favour of appointing an ad-hoc Ombudsman, as suggested by BCCI legal advisors, to overlook Pandya-Rahul sexism episode. Rai has instructed BCCI CEO Rahul Johri to carry out a preliminary inquiry but Diana Edulji wants otherwise. Edulji, who forms the the other half of the CoA, wants a permanent appointee to probe the case.

On 17 January, SC will take up Cricket Association of Bihar’s petition about the working of the CoA and BCCI, and Edulji, in a mail to Rai, demanded the apex court be informed about the situation. "The Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for 17 January, let the court be informed about this situation and let an Ombudsman be appointed by the court instead of taking a wrong step of appointing the ad hoc ombudsman, which is not as per the new constitution," she wrote.

Indian cricketer Hardik Pandya (L) celebrates with teammate Lokesh Rahul after dismissing Sri Lankan cricketer Niroshan Dickwella during the fourth day of the second Test match between Sri Lanka and India at the Sinhalese Sports Club (SSC) Ground in Colombo on August 6, 2017. (Photo by LAKRUWAN WANNIARACHCHI / AFP)

Hardik Pandya (L) and KL Rahul have returned from Australia mid-way through the tour. AFP

Edulji fears a "cover-up" in the controversy, triggered by Pandya and Rahul's much-condemned statements on 'Koffee with Karan'.

BCCI’s legal advisors, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, had written to Edulji about setting an ad-hoc Ombudsman in a mail sent on 10 January.

Rai wrote back to Edulji that BCCI should not be in the business of ruining young careers and that "your committee" will run the risk of being "judge, jury, and executioner".

"Please note that since you do not want to follow the suggestion of legal to have an ‘ad hoc ombudsman’. Your suggestion runs the risk of your committee being ‘judge, jury and executioner’. Please go ahead and take it forward. I will keep away and leave it to you.

The CEO must fulfill 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," Rai wrote to Edulji.

"BCCI is not in the business of ending young careers. Please be assured that the desire to conduct the inquiry is not a desire to 'cover up'. The interest of cricket in India has to be kept in mind," wrote Rai as reported by PTI.

He also wrote that ad-hoc Ombudsman will not cover-up the case. He wrote, "Please be assured that the desire to conduct the inquiry is not a desire to 'cover up'. The interest of cricket in India has to be kept in mind. The off the ground act of the players was deplorable. It was crass as I said immediately after reading the comments."

The 10th CoA report clearly indicates that as per the newly registered constitution, BCCI requires the appointment of an Ombudsman for the purpose to providing an independent dispute resolution mechanism.

“The newly registered constitution of BCCI requires the appointment of an Ombudsman at the Annual General Meeting for the purpose of providing an independent dispute resolution mechanism. It is necessary that the first Ombudsman be appointed at the earliest so that the provisions relating to independent dispute resolution mechanism under the newly registered constitution can be implemented immediately,” read the report.

It is to be noted that no Special General Meeting has been held to appoint an Ombudsman.

In another development, acting president CK Khanna received requisitions from 10 state units demanding a Special General Meeting at the earliest.

As per the new constitution, the secretary — in this case, the acting secretary — can call an SGM on 21 days' notice but if it has to be an Emergent SGM within 10 days, the board president (acting president) in this case has to convene the meeting.

"It will be interesting what call Khanna will take. If I remember, he once didn't sign the minutes of SGM fearing that it would be in violation of Supreme Court orders. On another occasion, he didn't even attend an SGM," a state unit member, who was present during both the meetings, said.

"There is a possibility that Khanna may instruct Amitabh Chaudhary to call a normal SGM with 21 days' notice which a secretary is allowed to," he added.

With inputs from PTI

Updated Date: Jan 14, 2019 18:30:10 IST







Top Stories

Rank Team Points Rating
1 India 5007 116
2 South Africa 4280 110
3 England 5310 108
4 New Zealand 3213 107
5 Australia 4143 101
6 Sri Lanka 4103 91
Rank Team Points Rating
1 England 6918 126
2 India 7351 121
3 New Zealand 5188 113
4 South Africa 4985 111
5 Pakistan 4370 102
6 Australia 4290 100
Rank Team Points Rating
1 Pakistan 4979 138
2 India 5298 126
3 England 2586 118
4 Australia 3266 117
5 South Africa 2502 114
6 New Zealand 2940 113