Sachin Tendulkar, in his 13-point response to BCCI Ethics Officer DK Jain has denied BCCI’s claim that his alleged Conflict of Interest falls under “tractable category”, terming the parent body “responsible for the current situation” ascending due to his role as a member of the Cricket Advisory Committee and an ‘Icon’ of Mumbai Indians.
According to the BCCI’s constitution clause 38 (3) (a): “Tractable conflicts are those that are resolvable or permissible or excusable through recusal of the individual concerned and - or - with full disclosure of the interest involved”.
He has even asked the Officer to call Committee of Administrators (CoA) chief Vinod Rai and CEO Rahul Johri to “clarify their position”. the Ombudsman cum Ethics officer DK Jain has served all three CAC members -- Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, and VVS Laxman notices for conflict of interest and all three have rejected any such in their affidavits.
The most pertinent points where Tendulkar has given a strong rebuttal are points 10, 11 and 12, which is in possession of PTI.
“Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Noticee submits that it is surprising that the BCCI, being the very authority responsible for the Noticee’s empanelment to the Cricket Advisory Committee (“CAC”), is presently taking a position that the Noticee is exposed to an alleged conflict of interest. It is reiterated that, the Noticee was declared as the Mumbai Indians ‘ICON’ post his retirement in 2013, which was much prior to his appointment to the CAC in 2015,” Tendulkar has stated in his response.
He says that neither BCCI CEO nor CoA clarified terms of reference with regards to his appointment in CAC and mentioned, “The Noticee (Tendulkar) has time and again sought clarification from the BCCI on the scope of his role in the CAC - but has not received a response from BCCI till date. BCCI is aware that the CAC merely performs an advisory / recommendatory role - and therefore, the Noticee’s role as a Mumbai Indians Icon (which in fact has always been in the public domain) cannot, in any practical way, conflict with his involvement in the CAC.”
He further responds, “The Noticee fails to understand how the BCCI (after having appointed him to the CAC) can now maintain its current stand that he is in a position of ‘tractable’ conflict of interest. The BCCI Response does not clarify this variance in its stance and the Noticee requests the Hon’ble Ethics Officer to call upon BCCI Officials, Mr. Rahul Johri and Mr. Vinod Rai to clarify this position.”
Tendulkar has been hurt by the fact that he is being asked questions despite serving Indian cricket for two decades, and mentions, “The Noticee has served the Indian cricket team for more than 2 decades and accepted empanelment with the CAC to help and contribute towards the growth of Indian cricket. It is unfortunate that the Noticee has to clarify the questions raised in the Complaint and BCCI Response.”
“The Noticee repeats that BCCI is responsible for the situation created in terms of the Noticee’s honorary empanelment to the CAC even though he was a Mumbai Indians Icon at the relevant time. The BCCI shall be called upon to clarify the issue,” Tendulkar also mentioned in his response.