Vinod Rai, ICC World Cup 2019
Vinod RaiCredits - Getty Images

Here is the complete e-mail conversation between CoA members, Vinod Rai, Diana Edulji with BCCI office-bearers, Rahul Johri, Amitabh Choudhary, CK Khanna, and Anirudh Chaudhry. The internal email correspondence has revealed to The Indian Express how things shaped up in the controversy surrounding Hardik Pandya and KL Rahul.

Soon the episode in Koffee With Karan went air, BCCI CEO Rahul Johri acted promptly to issue showcause notice to the disgraced cricketers and asked them to return to the country. Hardik Pandya immediately issued an apology to the notice.

“Dear Sir, Please find attached my reply to the BCCI show cause notice. Also attached are the screenshots of my public apology as issued by me on my social media handles this morning,” Pandya replied.

Hardik Pandya | KL Rahul | Priya Malik |
Twitter

Replying to the same, Vinod Rain wrote,

 “The apology has obviously been drafted 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 feel? Could be different for both players depending upon what they have said in the show.”

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 draft an appropriate instruction and issue today as their explanations have come in. Separately please prepare an advisory to all BCCI contracted players and support staff,” he added.

CoA, BCCI, Hardik Pandya, KL Rahul
Credit: The Indian Express

CoA member Diana Edulji enters the scene

Edulji sought the opinion of the legal team on the course of action. Indranil Deshmukh advised BCCI to adhere to Rule 41 of the Constitution and find an explanation from them as to why they should not be proceeded against for misconduct and indiscipline.

Read More  Suryakumar Yadav comes out and announces his return, fires warning to Mumbai Indians about 'Riyan Parag 2.0'

The E-mail addressed to Edulji said:

The show cause letter (to Pandya and Rahul) should specify that (i) the same is being issued under Rule 41 of the BCCI Constitution and (ii) an enquiry against them has commenced. We are of the view that there is a risk of the communications sent by the BCCI to the players on 9th January 2019 not being construed as a communication under Rule 41 of the BCCI Constitution.

This is because the said communications dated 9th January 2019 do not contain the specifications/ingredients mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, to ensure that there are no procedural missteps, it would be preferable that fresh communications are issued by the CEO to the concerned players…,” he added.

Vinod Rai, Diana Edulji
Getty Images

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 Constitution) at the earliest and in any event within 15 days from the date of reference by the COA,” it recommended further.

Divergent views delayed the inquiry

On January 12, Rai recommended that the enquiry should complete quickly and explanations sought at the earliest. Further, the timeline being looked at was the second ODI between India and Australia (played on Tuesday). Edulji, in response, differed on the timeline and process.

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-related [sic] with delibating [sic] team strength.”

In order to be fair and transparent and in legal terms it is said that not only justice is done but also seen to be done. As such my view is we follow natural justice and total transparency and not let any external factors come into play,” he added.

Hardik Pandya | KL Rahul | Sunil Gavaskar |
Twitter

On suspension handed to the players, Edulji also brought out a precedent from 1936 surrounding Lala Amarnath being sent back for alleged insubordination. She wrote,

There has been a precedent when Lala Amarnath was sent back from the 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 large. For your knowledge, in the recently concluded football World Cup a Croatian player was sent back after their first game on disciplinary grounds, Croatia went on to win the World Cup.”

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

Read More  Watch: 'Furious' Rishabh Pant's bat-bashing outburst after disappointing performance vs RR goes viral

I am an accountant by qualification, my parents thought their obedient son would study further to become a CA, but I had other things in mind. An ardent Cricket fan is following his passion and making...