Suspend BCCI CEO Rahul Johri & probe him: State associations’ ultimatum to Vinod Rai’s CoA

File photo of Rahul Johri | Commons

Six state associations of BCCI write to CoA chief Vinod Rai, seek answers on allegations of sexual harassment against Rahul Johri.

Bengaluru: Demanding a response to the serious sexual harassment allegations against Indian cricket board CEO Rahul Johri, six state cricket associations have written to the court-appointed panel running the board as well as its principal office bearers.

The associations — Tamil Nadu, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Saurashtra and Madhya Pradesh — have asked Vinod Rai, chairman of the Committee of Administrators (CoA), to either act on the allegations or explain the process in place to deal with them.

They have also asked for Johri to be suspended, pending investigation.

Rai, a former Comptroller and Auditor General, has been under pressure to investigate allegations that Johri behaved improperly with women colleagues in his time at Discovery Channel, before his employment at BCCI, and subsequently, with an unnamed employee of the BCCI.

Rai’s committee had given Johri a week to reply to the charges against him, and also instructed him not to attend an International Cricket Council meeting in Singapore as a representative of the Indian board while the matter was pending. But that week has passed, and neither Rai nor Johri have made public comments about whether the matter has moved forward.

ThePrint has accessed multiple letters sent to Rai Wednesday, and the gist is as follows.

‘An act as heinous as rape’

The first, from the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, was scathing in its opening:

“We are writing this because we are pained at the goings-on at the BCCI and because of the fact that allegations of rape or an act as heinous if not more, have emerged against the Chief Executive Officer of the BCCI.

“The response from the CoA to that had been to seek an explanation from him within a period of one week and the media release issued by the CoA describe the allegations as those of ‘sexual harassment’ while the allegations are clearly those of rape or an act as heinous if not more.

“It is reported in the media that he has replied to the show cause notice issued to him. However, there has been no confirmation of the same by the CoA. We wish to know about the role of the office bearers in the process.”

The letter questions the procedure adopted, asking which “provisions of the BCCI’s rules and regulations were invoked to initiate the procedure in the given facts and circumstances”.

It also asks why the CoA has not communicated the details of this process to the members of the BCCI, the relevant authorities, or the public.

List of questions

What follows is a laundry-list of questions, the salient points of which are reproduced here:

1. When the allegations had been taken cognisance of by the CoA and a show cause notice had been served upon Johri, why did the CoA not deem it fit to suspend the official pending the disposal of the matter by the CoA? Could the CoA really risk the possibility of someone having committed such a dastardly act as described in the allegations being allowed to continue to work in the office of the BCCI in the interim? Did the CoA not feel that allowing him to continue in his position as the CEO of the BCCI would scare off the victim of the alleged behaviour? If it is ultimately found that the allegations were true, it would mean that such a person would have freely interacted with women in his official and powerful position in the interim.
2. Were the steps taken by the CoA in this matter consistent with the steps taken in other matters such as the issue relating to Mohammed Shami, the issue relating to Akram Saifi etc.? Have all cases of allegations, whether they are of a carnal nature or otherwise, been treated the same, i.e., has the same procedure been followed for all matters?
3. In the case of Shami, the CoA had suspended his contract and had tasked the BCCI ACU chief, Mr Neeraj Kumar, to investigate the issue within a week. To his credit, Mr Kumar completed the investigations within a week, submitted his report and the CoA then closed the issue. In this case, did the CoA ask any person to look into the matter, or was it left to the discretion of the person accused to present the facts completely?
4. Did the CoA not feel that his continuance in the instant matter pending adjudication would create a work environment that is toxic for women?
   

 

5. Have the steps taken/procedure followed by the CoA in this matter been taken on the basis of legal advice? Who has given the advice? Does Mr Rahul Johri interact with these lawyers who have advised the CoA on this matter? On account of the various directions issued by the CoA, do these lawyers not essentially depend upon Mr Rahul Johri’s decisions to some extent? We would like to see a copy of the advice from the lawyers and their details and the number of cases and dates of hearing on behalf of the BCCI that Mr Johri has interacted with them on.
6. What assurance can be given to the members that the legal advice being given by the lawyers in this matter is in the best interest of the organisation rather than in the best interest of Mr Johri? How many times has Mr Johri interacted with these lawyers by phone or by email since the allegations saw the light of day?
7. Which group of lawyers considered his response to the show cause notice and briefed the CoA about the same?
8. An anonymous email in the month of January 2017 had also referred to matters of sexual harassment at a place of Mr Johri’s previous employment and the latest allegations in addition thereto make the position of Mr Johri increasingly untenable and call into question various decisions of Mr Johri and of the BCCI during his term. We wish to seek copies of all communications and papers relating to all employments done during his tenure.
9. The possibility of the allegations and the other allegations being true further leaves the BCCI in a very dangerous position where the BCCI’s present representative, who has been given a free run by the CoA, would be required to interact and engage with other corporates, media houses and media professionals, and this may severely damage the image of the board. Further, the possibility of Mr Johri interacting with his earlier employers, with whom the BCCI is in litigation, does not inspire any confidence whatsoever at this stage.
10. Most importantly, we believe that Mr Johri cannot be allowed to represent the BCCI at the ICC or at the ACC (Asian Cricket Council) till further notice, and the skipping of an ICC meeting cannot be restricted to this last meeting.

Non-negotiable demands

The letter reminds the CoA that Aditya Verma, secretary of the Cricket Association of Bihar, has sent multiple missives, none of which have been answered. It demands action while laying down certain basic non-negotiable demands.

“Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, you are requested to place Mr Rahul Johri under suspension and provide us with all the information that has been sought by us by way of this communication.

“Further, we call for Mr Johri’s immediate suspension pending an inquiry into these incidents of his conduct as mentioned above, to be conducted by an independent panel of three individuals of which one must be nominated by the State Associations, one by the office bearers and one by the CoA.

“You are also requested to inform Mr Rahul Johri to not visit any of our premises in any capacity till further notice as we would not allow him on our premises till these issues are settled.”

Will Rai deliver on his mandate?

The ball, once more, is in Rai’s court. What remains to be seen is whether he, as an administrator appointed by the highest court of the country, will be transparent and fair, for he came to cricket administration on the plank that this was lacking in the BCCI, and he would be the man to change things.