The CoA has severely criticised the conduct of BCCI acting chief CK Khanna (left), secretary Amitabh Choudhary (centre) and treasurer Anirudh Chaudhry. Express
IN ONE of the sharpest attacks on Indian cricket officialdom since it took charge in January, the Committee of Administrators (CoA) has urged the Supreme Court to remove the top three BCCI office-bearers, stating that their conduct was “unfit” and that they weren’t in a position to “make good” on their undertakings of implementing the Lodha reforms.
While recommending the ouster of acting president C K Khanna, acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary and acting treasurer Anirudh Chaudhry, the CoA has asked for the management, administration and governance of Indian cricket to be entrusted exclusively in their hands till the new set of office-bearers is appointed via fresh elections.
This is the most stinging and significant of the CoA’s recommendations in their fifth status report that was submitted to the Supreme Court Tuesday, three days prior to the next hearing.
The report mentioned that Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke were removed from their posts of the BCCI president and secretary, respectively, through an order of apex court on January 2 and that “it was only fair” the current office-bearers be treated in the “same manner”.
“The current office-bearers of the BCCI have demonstrated scant regard for the directions issued by the Committee of Administrators and continue to flout the same with impunity,” the report reads. It further reports that the actions of the constituent members of the BCCI constituted “wilful disobedience” and demonstrated “overall resistance” to the Supreme Court’s order.
The CoA has also came down hard on the cricket board members for deliberately subverting the court directives during the BCCI’s July 26 Special General Meeting (SGM). They also lambasted BCCI CEO Rahul Johri’s exclusion along with that of the legal team from the last SGM, for which the Committee had show-caused the office-bearers.
“…the office-bearers instead of reprimanding the constituent members who were suggesting that BCCI officials including the CEO leave the meeting, did absolutely nothing. They came up with ingenious answers that CEO left of his own accord. Such a stand being taken by the office bearers is most unfortunate,” it stated.
The CoA directive mandated Johri’s presence at the meeting. The CEO was excluded citing the Supreme Court order that made only the state association/member office-bearers to attend the meeting. But the CoA felt that the decision was “pre-planned and orchestrated”.
The CoA pointed out how during the SGM, the high-court appointed Delhi and District Cricket Association Administrator, Justice (Retd) Vikramajit Sen, took a dig at the BCCI members saying, “There are some things the Lodha Committee had suggested and you are doing everything contrary to that.” The diversion tactics of the BCCI office-bearers also came for flak with the CoA noting, “The totally neutral expression ‘etc’ was treated as an excuse to bring in a series of issues aimed at unravelling the fundamental core of the reforms.”
Over the last six months, the CoA had tried to build consensus among members, informing them that it would be considerate towards one or two practical issues like three-member selection committee and one state-one vote.
But the BCCI SGM on July 26 objected to five points in the Lodha Committee recommendations — “One state-one vote; disqualifications of office-bearers (above 70 years of age and/or completing nine years with cooling-off periods); powers, duties and responsibilities of employers, office-bearers, functionaries, committees etc. (have to be dynamic and have to be decided by the board); number of selectors and constitution of the apex council.
No communication
The committee also mentioned another instance relating to the same SGM which showed the BCCI office bearers’ “impunity” revealing that they failed to communicate the decisions taken during the meeting to the Committee despite directions to that effect.
The CoA also flayed the general body for not adopting the new Conflict of Interest guidelines and the New Fund Disbursement Policy. The status report also spoke about prima facie “instances of malfeasance and misfeasance” of funds in certain state associations and asked for a committee to be appointed for investigation. They also recommended that the Supreme Court appoint an administrator in each state association to usher in reforms.
