Reports | Hardik Pandya, KL Rahul could face more trouble as BCCI starts formal enquiry

The Indian cricket team pulled off a stunning 2-1 series win against Australia away from home last week, however, while media outlets should be praising the national team for their on-field exploits, they’re focused on the off-field antics of certain players. Indian pair of Hardik Pandya and KL Rahul have been in the news for all the wrong reasons in the past few days ever since their episode of "Koffee with Karan". 

Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) member Diana Edulji and office bearers have asked for a legal opinion on how to deal with the behaviour of Pandya and opener KL Rahul. In response to that, the legal team has recommended a process which gives the option of suspension of the players pending enquiry that can be completed within a period of 6 months.

“Considering that the BCCI at present does not have an Ombudsman, the COA, in our view, will be justified in and entitled to appoint an ad hoc ombudsman with a defined specific mandate of adjudicating on the present matter. The Ad hoc Ombudsman should possess the qualifications required for an Ombudsman under Rule 40(1) of the BCCI constitution.

“Thereafter, the Ad hoc Ombudsman should adjudicate on the matter in the manner as prescribed in the BCCI constitution,” read a letter to CoA by the BCCI legal team which was accessed by Hindustan Times.

In another interview with HT, a senior BCCI official also brought up the issue as to why the top officials in the Indian governing body were not notified of the proceedings being carried out against Pandya.

“The suggestion to appoint an ad-hoc Ombudsman smacks of bias and pliability to cater to Vinod Rai. The CoA can ask the BCCI to appoint an Ombudsman at this stage by calling a General Meeting. Why are they keen to avoid that? Do they want to appoint someone that suits Vinod Rai? Is he interested in a particular appointment? Will it be like the ad-hoc committee he himself had constituted which originally had people he was personally acquainted with? Why do they want to avoid a democratic process ?

“Why does their view exclude even the office bearers who continue by virtue of an order of the Court from their version of the Apex Council? Surely they understand that the administration of BCCI cannot be at the whims and fancies of an individual, especially one over 70 years of age,” the source said.