Koffee Storm Spills Over to CoA, Where Once Again, Drama Unfolds
More infighting in the CoA has led to a drawn out investigation into the Pandya-Rahul matter.
They fought over Rahul Johri’s ‘Me Too’ case verdict. They fought over the appointment of the women’s team coach. And now, the Vinod Rai versus Diana Edulji standoff has extended itself into the Hardik Pandya and KL Rahul inquiry.
Both players are back in India after being called back from the ongoing tour of Australia for an investigation into their comments on the Koffee With Karan episode that aired on 6 January. Both players, for all practical purposes, have missed two ODIs already – the quantum of punishment initially suggested by Vinod Rai.
One Matter, Three Routes
Once again, the infighting within the board has put this investigation too at a crossroads with three different methods being suggested for the way forward.
- CoA chief Vinod Rai has instructed BCCI CEO Rahul Johri to conduct an inquiry as per clause 41 (c) of the new BCCI constitution.
- Diana Edulji wants an inquiry done by CoA and the BCCI office-bearers, fearing a ‘cover up’ in the name of a speedy verdict.
- Also stepping in this time are state associations with 10 BCCI units demanding a Special General Meeting (SGM) to appoint an ombudsman for carrying out an inquiry.
Another Round of ‘Leaked’ CoA Emails
Vinod Rai had initially suggested suspending the two players for two matches each and for the inquiry to be finished by the second ODI as both players are integral members of the Indian team and the ICC World Cup starts in four months’ time.
He, however, left the final decision to fellow CoA member Diana Edulji, who chose to consult with the BCCI’s legal team. "We should be in no hurry to conduct the inquiry as it would then look like a cover-up job being done," Edulji wrote in her email response on Friday.
In a fresh round of mails over the weekend, Rai wrote “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. 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.”
“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,” Rai added.
17 Jan Supreme Court Hearing Awaited
Once again the CoA versus CoA infighting is seeing a new facet of Indian cricket suffering, but this time it has reached very dangerous territory. While till now it restricted itself to cricket administration, the indecisive nature of the two-member committee is seeing the composition of the Indian men’s cricket team being compromised.
And there seems to be no resolution in sight yet. Well, not till 17 January at least, when the Supreme Court is set to hear a few pending matters concerning the board and the CoA.
Vinod Rai informed Diana Edulji over a mail on Monday that a request has been made with the apex court to appoint an ombudsman for the case, on advice of the legal team.
“During the 17th (January) hearing, we request the hon Court to appoint an Ombudsman. 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,” he wrote.
So, one entire week after the episode aired on national television, the CoA has decided to wait for another three days for a resolution on the way forward. Leave alone the resolution of the matter.
BCCI State Units Step In
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, told PTI.
“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)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)