The Committee of Administrators led by Vinod Rai is adamant on removing BCCI senior officials as per their latest status update report. The two-member CoA comprising Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji, on Thursday filed their seventh status report in the Supreme Court, where they have recommended election for fresh set of office-bearers by removing acting president CK Khanna, acting secretary Amitabh Chaudhary and treasurer Aniruddh Chaudhry. The CoA has also recommended removal of IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla, stating that he has also surpassed his tenure.
The relations between senior BCCI officials and the CoA have been affected by the implementation of the Lodha reforms. While, CoA has constantly accused the senior BCCI officials of delaying the reports, the latter feel that Rai and Co. have overstepped the brief given to them as per Apex Court’s verdict.
The CoA in its report cited Rule 15 (i) of existing BCCI constitution which states: “The election of Office Bearers and vice-presidents shall be held at the AGM of the Board every year. The office bearers and vice president so elected will hold office for three years.”
The CoA wrote “In our respectful understanding the aforesaid order dated January 2, 2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not deal with issue of tenure of office bearers. The said order provides that i) the senior most vice-president shall perform duties of president. ii) joint secretary shall perform duties of secretary. iii) other office-bearers shall continue, all subject to conditions stipulated therein. Accordingly, if the respective terms of senior-most vice-president and joint secretary have expired, they cannot continue to perform their duties of the President and secretary respectively.”
The CoA also stated that Shukla’s term has already ended on September 20, 2017 and there is a need to select fresh set of office-bearers.
A senior BCCI official in the know of things told PTI: “The CoA, on one hand, quotes the existing BCCI constitution for removal of the office-bearers but at the same time does not summon general body on policy matters. The Players’ Central contract should have been placed at the GB. Similarly, all the major appointments — ACU office, GM (marketing), GM (Cricket Operations) should have been done in consultation with general body. So on one hand, you cite BCCI constitution to remove them and on other hand bypass it on policy matters.
“Also, Rai started interfering in technical cricketing matters, which certainly wasn’t his domain. A question can be asked about how come, he was asking questions on cricketing issue whereas the Supreme Court mandate was to implement Lodha Committee recommendations,” the senior official added.