You are on page 1of 15

Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:00:56 PM India Standard Time

Subject: Re: Your interview on Koffee with Karan aired on 6 January 2019
Date: Sunday, 13 January 2019 at 11:10:45 PM India Standard Time
To: Vinod Rai
CC: C K Khanna, Rahul Johri, Indranil Deshmukh, Karina Kripalani, Amitabh Choudhary, Anirudh

COA can’t be duty bound in selected maTers and that’s what I have been highlighVng all through, that we should
act as per the rules and regulaVons being the new consVtuVon at all Vmes.

Your point of not going against a Supreme Court DirecVon / ConsVtuVon is what I have been Vme and again
warning about as you have acted against the Supreme Court DirecVon/ConsVtuVon in the maTer of Women’s
team Head Coach where a commiTee was appointed inspite of CAC being there and also in the case of sexual
harassment maTer of Rahul Johri, you unilaterally appointed the independent commiTee which is not as per the
ConsVtuVon and I had opposed for that also.

Your point of “your commiTee being 'judge, jury and execuVoner’” is exactly what you followed and did in the
sexual harassment case, which I had opposed and you took the decisions unilaterally.

My point of having a legal view in players maTer was only to take a informed and correct decision. As there is no
provision for appointment of an ad hoc ombudsman as per the new ConsVtuVon we cannot go ahead with that.

As the SC hearing is scheduled for 17th Jan, let the court be informed about this situaVon and let an Ombudsman
be appointed by the court instead of taking a wrong step of appoinVng the ad hoc ombudsman, which is not as
per the new consVtuVon.


On Sat, 12 Jan 2019, 8:08 pm vinod rai < wrote:

In my view, the COA is duty bound to follow the new constitution and what you are suggesting
is neither in consonance with the constitution nor is it as per the legal advice received.
It cannot be the case that we follow legal advice only when we consider it, "justifiable". I can’t
be party to this decision and process.

In the circumstances , please go ahead with your suggestion. You and AS please conduct the
inquiry. I cannot be a party to such an inquiry as I will not go against a Supreme
Court direction/constitution.
Also 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
Please go ahead and take it forward. I will keep away and leave it to you.


PS. Incidentally,Croatia did not win the recently concluded World Cup. France was the winner.


Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 4:57 PM
To: Vinod Rai
Cc: C K Khanna; Amitabh Choudhary (Jt Secretary); Anirudh Chaudhary; Rahul Johri; Indranil Deshmukh;
Karina Kripalani
Subject: Re: Your interview on Koffee with Karan aired on 6 January 2019

Page 1 of 14
Dear Mr Rai,

I have gone through the contents of your email and I am lisVng here with my pointers.

1. Legal advise / opinion has been followed whenever they have placed jusVfiable argument.

2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has not removed the current office bearers as such they are sVll exisVng and
funcVoning. If all are working in the interest of BCCI, what is the harm in taking a collecVve decision in the
interest of BCCI ?

The independent commiTee that was formed by you also recognised them and called them to depose, then I
do not understand why you seem to have a problem with the office bearers advising us in the maTer as they
are sVll a part of the system.

3. Please bare in mind that unilateral decisions taken by just you on crickeVng maTers is also affecVng the team
and damages may be irreparable. This doesn’t support the beTerment of Indian cricket .

4. Yesterday’s decision of suspension was a collecVve decision of the COA and the office bearers.

5. Whenever a suspension takes place it is only sensible that the players in quesVon are not part of the team
and are called back for the enquiry proceedings. Will it be jusVfied to keep them in Australia and bare a
financial burden?

There has been a precedent when Lala Amarnath was sent back from UK. Such strict steps will ensure that no
one henceforth makes such loose talk which are detrimental to the image of Cricketers, Cricket and BCCI at

For your knowledge, in the recently concluded football World Cup a CroaVon player was sent back aoer their
first game on disciplinary grounds, CroaVa went on to win the World Cup.

6. Regarding the CEO, he was cleared by you, not me. If my opinion about the CEO was personal, then the
office bearers, the cricket fraternity would not be poinVng out the same thing.

The views of the fans are important and if you have been following media reports it is quite clear. I agree, if you
keep repeaVng he is cleared that doesn’t make it the truth.

7. There is no delay. We have given them seven days to respond to the noVce sent by us late last night. Then,
why are you now instrucVng that the inquiry must be completed before the 3rd ODI. Are you prejudging the
outcome of this inquiry also?


On 12 Jan 2019 1:26 p.m., "vinod rai" <> wrote:

Let us first decide whether ;

1. we follow the legal advise or not?

2. discuss within the COA or involve others who are yet to get elected as per the new
3. There is no provision to have COA or Apex Council do an inquiry. Further, orders passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court require COA to administer through the CEO. The posiVon
of the CEO is not only recognised by the ConsVtuVon which has been approved by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court but also the ConsVtuVon which requires the CEO to conduct the
preliminary enquiry.

Page 2 of 14
Yesterday we went by legal advise.
I am not aware of any decision to call the players back. I do not remember taking it.
The CEO has been cleared. If anyone has a grievance, as per Hon’ble Supreme Court direcVon, she/he must
go and file a complaint. By repeaVng a personal view, it does not become true.
If we in BCCI are not bothered about delay, then it is beTer to leave the issue and await :

1. Apex Council to be formed and BCCI office bearers joining aoer fresh elecVons as per the
new consVtuVon.
2. An ombudsman being appointed
3. The enquiry then proceeding.

Thus, we can let the interest of the team suffer and the damage may be irreparable.


Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 11:16 AM
To: Rahul Johri
Cc: Vinod Rai; C K Khanna; Amitabh Choudhary (Jt Secretary); Anirudh Chaudhary; Karina Kripalani;
Indranil Deshmukh

Subject: Re: Your interview on Koffee with Karan aired on 6 January 2019

Dear Mr. Rai, Rahul,

I agree that the suspension orders have taken effect.

The players have been given 7 days Vme to respond to the showcause noVce served on them.

In view of the grave sexual allegaVons levied on the CEO, it wouldn't be jusVfied if he conducts the inquiry.
It's bad opVcs and COA will be criVcised for it.

With 2 players coming back the Selectors are in the process of sending the replacements immediately and as
such the team will be full strength.

We should be in no hurry to conduct the inquiry as then it will look like a cover up job being done. The
behaviour of the players have been very controversial and should not be co realted with delibaVng team

The consVtuVon does not provide for appointment of an ad hoc ombudsman as such it wont be prudent to
go down that lane.

In order to be fair and transparent and in legal terms it is said that not only jusVce is done but also seen to
be done. As such my view is we follow natural jusVce and total transparency and not let any external factors

Page 3 of 14
be done. As such my view is we follow natural jusVce and total transparency and not let any external factors
come into play.

The inquiry should be done by the COA along with the three Office Bearers or the COA along with the
Secretary who is sVll funcVonal and carrying out his duVes.

Let us not rush into making wrong decisions.


On 12 Jan 2019 7:29 a.m., "Rahul Johri" <> wrote:


Regards, Rahul.

On 12-Jan-2019, at 7:24 AM, vinod rai <> wrote:

Now that the noVce has been issued and suspension orders have taken effect we
need to take the following steps:

1. CEO to commence the enquiry as advised by legal.

2. Since the team is abroad with a squad of 15 ( effecVvely only 13 now), we
will have to complete the enquiry quickly. The players must give their
explanaVon early.
3. We must take a view by the Vme the second ODI is over as we cannot
afford to debilitate team strength due to delinquent behavior on the part
of some player.
4. Since legal is advising the appointment of ad hoc Ombudsman, the most
expedient way to do so is to seek the guidance of Amicus to approach the
appropriate person for this specific assignment.

CEO to take urgent steps to have the process going.


Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 5:54 PM
To: Rahul Johri
Cc: Vinod Rai; Indranil Deshmukh; Karina Kripalani
Subject: Re: Your interview on Koffee with Karan aired on 6 January 2019

Both can go from Coa

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, 17:44 Rahul Johri < wrote:

Page 4 of 14
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, 17:44 Rahul Johri < wrote:
Dear Sir & Ma’am,

As per legal, the CEO will send the show cause noVce and The suspension noVce will go
from the CoA.

Regards, Rahul.

On 11-Jan-2019, at 5:32 PM, vinod rai <> wrote:

CEO may issue noVce to suspend.

Sent from my iPhone

On 11-Jan-2019, at 7:29 PM, DIANA EDULJI <> wrote:


On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, 16:42 Deshmukh, Indranil

< wrote:

Dear Ma’am,

As stated in our –email below, the power to suspend a

player is with the COA. Hence, once COA takes this decision,
the players would need to inVmated with separate
communicaVon from the COA regarding their suspension.
We have draoed such communicaVon, draos of which are
aTached. Once the COA approves the said draos may be
finalized and issued aoer the show cause noVces are sent.




Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 4:22 PM
To: Deshmukh, Indranil
Cc: Vinod Rai <>; C K Khanna
<>; Amitabh Choudhary (Jt Secretary)
<>; Anirudh Chaudhary
<>; Rahul Johri <>;
Karina Kripalani <>
Subject: Fwd: Your interview on Koffee with Karan aired
on 6 January 2019

There is no menVon of suspension in these noVces.

Page 5 of 14
We need to urgently let the team management know so
they are mentally prepared.

India today channel is carrying the story that both players

have been dropped .

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Rahul Johri <>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019, 2:07 pm
Subject: Re: Your interview on Koffee with Karan aired on 6
January 2019
To: Vinod Rai <>, Diana Edulji
Cc: Indranil Deshmukh
<>, Karina Kripalani

Dear Sir and Ma'am,

As per the legal advice provided by CAM, please find

aTached for your consideraVon herewith draos of noVces
that may be issued to Mr. Pandya and Mr. Rahul.

Kindly advise




On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:21 AM DIANA EDULJI

<> wrote:

Based on the legal opinion and Vll the Vme the final
procedure is laid down to address this issue, will
recommend that a communicaVon be sent to the
concerned players and the team immediately.

Page 6 of 14
It will be imperaVve that the players be put under
suspension Vll a further course of acVon is decided for
this misconduct as was done in the case of CEO when he
was sent on leave in the sexual harassment maTer.


On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, 8:52 am Amitabh Choudhary

< wrote:

Dear Indranil,

I have a copy of the legal view put forth by you.

Kindly let me know the ComposiVon of the Apex

Council as laid down in the ConsVtuVon.

Thanks and regards,


On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:54 PM DIANA EDULJI

<> wrote:

Please see the opinion received just now from the

legal team - request your views on the same so that
a informed decision can be be taken.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, 7:24 pm Deshmukh, Indranil

< wrote:

Dear Ma’am & Sir,

As requested, our analysis of the relevant

documents and the recommended way forward
is set out hereunder.

I. Relevant provisions of the BCCI


Page 7 of 14
1. As per Rule 16 of the BCCI ConsVtuVon
registered on 21st August 2018 (“BCCI
ConsNtuNon”), the BCCI exercises jurisdicVon
over players parVcipaVng in cricket. Rule 17
provides that the Apex Council has the power
to enquire into the conduct of any player and
take such disciplinary acVon against the
player as the Apex Council may deem fit,
which decision shall be final. Rule 18 provides
that in the event of the BCCI enquiring into
the conduct of a player, the BCCI shall
proceed in the manner prescribed in Rule 41.
It is thus necessary to read Rules 16, 17, 18
and 41 of the BCCI ConsVtuVon together.

2. Rule 41 lays down the procedure to be

followed by the BCCI in case of indiscipline or
misconduct by a player, etc. which is as

(i) Upon taking note of any act of

indiscipline or misconduct on its own
moVon, the Apex Council is to refer the
maTer within 48 hours to the CEO to
make a preliminary enquiry.

(ii) The CEO is to forthwith make a

preliminary inquiry and call for
explanaVons from the concerned player
and submit his report to the Apex
Council not later than 15 days from the
date of reference being made by the
Apex Council.

(iii) On receipt of the CEO’s report, the

Apex Council is to forward the same to
the Ombudsman who shall call for all
parVculars and unless it decides that
there is no prima facie case and
accordingly drops the charge, hearing

Page 8 of 14
accordingly drops the charge, hearing
shall commence on the case and shall be
completed as expediVously as possible
by providing a reasonable opportunity
to the parVes of being heard. If, despite
due noVce, any party fails to submit any
cause or submits insufficient cause, the
Ombudsman shall aoer providing
reasonable opportunity of hearing to
the parVes concerned, pass appropriate
order. In the event any party refuses and
or fails to appear despite noVce, the
Ombudsman shall be at liberty to
proceed ex-parte on the basis of
available records and evidence.

3. Rule 41(2) states that the Ombudsman

shall have the power to impose penalVes as
provided in the RegulaVons for Players, Team
Officials, Administrators, Managers and
Match Officials of the BCCI. Rule 41(4)
enVtles the BCCI to expel a player and cause
the player to forfeit all his rights and
privileges if found guilty.

4. Rule 41(6) states that pending inquiry and

proceedings into complaints or charges of
misconduct or any act of indiscipline, the
concerned player (along with their privileges
and benefits) may be suspended by the Apex
Council unVl final adjudicaVon. However, the
said adjudicaVon ought to be completed
within 6 months, failing which the suspension
shall cease.

II. Meaning of the term “misconduct” in the

present context

1. The BCCI ConsVtuVon does not define the

term “misconduct” and does not provide any
guidance on what the said term entails in the
present context.

Page 9 of 14
2. ‘Misconduct’ per se has been defined in
the Black’s Law Dic2onary to be “any
transgression of some established and
definite rule of ac2on, a forbidden act,
unlawful or improper behavior, willful in
character, a derelic2on of duty.” In a different
context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
opined that the word “misconduct” has no
precise meaning, and its scope and ambit has
to be construed with reference to the subject
maTer and context wherein the term occurs.
In the context of misconduct of player it may
be relevant to refer to the provisions
contained under the contract entered into
with him (“Player Contract”).

3. The Player Agreements defines the term

“Gross Misconduct” as under:

“Gross Misconduct” shall mean any serious or

persistent conduct or omission by the Player
which BCCI reasonably believes to be Gross
Misconduct including the following:

(h) Any conduct which may bring disrepute to

the game of cricket and/or the BCCI including the
Office Bearers of the BCCI.”

4. Further, Clause 6.3 of the Player

Contracts may also be relevant in this regard
which states – “Player shall not make any
comments about the game, officials,
incidents that happened in the game, use of
technology, selec2on maNers or any other
maNers related to the game which in the
opinion of the BCCI is adverse or likely to be
adverse to and/or not in the interest of the
game, team or the BCCI in any media
including social media such as Facebook,
TwiNer, Google + etc. The Player shall not
engage with the media during the Term on
any maNer related to the BCCI or the
Matches without first obtaining wriNen
approval from the BCCI.”

Page 10 of 14
III. BCCI Code of Conduct for Players and
Team Officials: We have gone through the Code
of Conduct which also lays down a procedure for
dealing with acts of misconduct on the part of
players. We feel that the present maTer does
not fall within the ambit of the Code of Conduct
and the procedure laid down in the Code of
Conduct should not be invoked in the present
circumstances because – (i) the Code of Conduct
primarily relates to on-field offences and only
those off-field offences which pertain to
criVcisms of any incidents occurred in a match or
against another player, team, support personnel,
match official or the like; and (ii) in any case the
procedure sVpulated in the BCCI ConsVtuVon
would have primacy over the procedure set out
under the Code of Conduct.

IV. Recommended way forward

1. We understand that the COA (which is

performing the role and responsibility of
the Apex Council envisaged in the BCCI
ConsVtuVon) has, on its own moVon, asked
the CEO to seek explanaVons from the
concerned players with regard to
statements made by them on Koffee with

2. In terms of Rule 41 of the BCCI

ConsVtuVon and as part of a preliminary
enquiry, the CEO of the BCCI should address
separate communicaVons to the concerned
player seeking an explanaVon from them
within a specified period as to why they
should not be proceeded against for
misconduct and indiscipline under Rule 41
of the BCCI ConsVtuVon. The said leTer
should specify that – (i) the same is being
issued under Rule 41 of the BCCI
ConsVtuVon; and (ii) an enquiry against
them has commenced. We are of the view

Page 11 of 14
them has commenced. We are of the view
that there is a risk of the communicaVons
sent by the BCCI to the players on 9th
January 2019 not being construed as a
communicaVon under Rule 41 of the BCCI
ConsVtuVon. This is because the said
communicaVons dated 9th January 2019 do
not contain the specificaVons/ingredients
menVoned hereinabove. Therefore, to
ensure that there are no procedural
missteps, it would be preferable that fresh
communicaVons are issued by the CEO to
the concerned players. The said fresh
communicaVons can make a reference to
the communicaVons dated 9th January

3. The CEO should submit its report to

the COA (as the COA is performing the role
and responsibility of the Apex Council
envisaged in the BCCI ConsVtuVon) at the
earliest and in any event within 15 days
from date of reference by the COA.

4. In the meanVme, considering that the

BCCI at present does not have an
Ombudsman, the COA, in our view, will be
jusVfied in and enVtled to appoint an ad
hoc ombudsman (“Ad hoc Ombudsman”)
with a defined specific mandate of
adjudicaVng on the present maTer. The Ad
hoc Ombudsman should possess the
qualificaVons required for an Ombudsman
under Rule 40(1) of the BCCI ConsVtuVon
i.e. he/she should be a reVred Judge of the
Supreme Court or a reVred Chief JusVce of
a High Court. The CEO’s report along with
relevant documents should be forwarded to
the Ad hoc Ombudsman as soon as he is

5. Thereaoer, the Ad hoc Ombudsman

should adjudicate on the maTer in the
manner as prescribed in the BCCI

Page 12 of 14
6. In terms of Rule 41(6), considering that
the inquiry process against the concerned
players has commenced and is pending, it is
open for the COA to suspend the concerned
players (along with their privileges and
benefits) pending enquiry and proceeding
into the charges of misconduct unVl final
adjudicaVon. The suspension will however
cease if the said adjudicaVon is not
completed within 6 months.



On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 9:59 AM DIANA EDULJI

<> wrote:

The Secretary and legal may kindly opine


On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, 8:47 am vinod rai

< wrote:

I have seen the remarks made by these two

players on the show in print today.

Very crass.

No apology can cover it. I had asked Diana

to suggest penalty because I had not seen
the clip.

I think we need to give both of them a two

match suspension.

If Diana agrees, Rahul please drao an

appropriate instrucVon and issue today as
their explanaVons have come in.

Separately please prepare an advisory to all

BCCI contracted players and support staff.

Page 13 of 14
From: vinod rai
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 8:05
To: Diana Edulji; Rahul Johri
Subject: Re: Your interview on Koffee
with Karan aired on 6 January 2019

The apology has obviously been draoed by

the agency. Doesn't appear sincere.

I am inclined to suggest a penalty. But since

I have not seen the clip, maybe Diana
would like to suggest some penalty.

There should be a penalty? What do you


Could be different for both players

depending upon what they have said in the

From: CommiTee of Administrators

Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 5:57
To: Vinod Rai; Diana Edulji; Rahul Johri;
Santosh Rangnekar; Indranil Deshmukh;
Adarsh Saxena; : Unnikrishnan, Vineet;; Karina
Subject: Fwd: Your interview on Koffee
with Karan aired on 6 January 2019


---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: hardik PANDYA
Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Your interview on Koffee with
Karan aired on 6 January 2019
To: Rahul Johri <>
Cc: CommiTee of Administrators
<>, Gaurav Saxena

Page 14 of 14
Dear Sir,
Please find aTached my reply to the BCCI
show cause noVce. Also aTached are the
screenshots of my public apology as
issued by me on my social media handles
this morning.


On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 1:05 PM, Rahul Johri

<> wrote:

Dear Mr. Pandya,

Please find aTached leTer, contents of

which are self explanatory



Page 15 of 14