Sometime on Monday, three judges of the Supreme Court will sit to resolve a simple question: Can a disqualified person play a role in a body he has been disqualified from? And leading from that, how do we ensure that a person who has been kicked out stays out?
That is the question the Committee of Administrators, in appropriate legalese, has posed to the Supreme Court. In its status report, the fourth of its six-month tenure, the CoA says, in Para 9: “The SGM held on June 26, 2017 was attended by various persons who are disqualified from being office bearers of the BCCI and/or their respective State/Member Associations including Mr N Srinivasan (representative of TNCA) and Mr Niranjan Shah (representative of Saurashtra Cricket Association) among others.”
The BCCI facilitated this, the CoA argues, through much smoke and some mirrors, arguing that disqualification rules only apply to office holders, not to nominated representatives. “In this manner,” the status report says (emphasis mine), “such disqualified persons are effectively able to do indirectly what they have been prohibited by this Hon’ble Court from doing directly.” And in para 12, the CoA says: “Further, from an audio recording of the SGM, it appears that such disqualified persons were able to effectively hijack proceedings at the SGM by prevailing upon other attendees (who may have been otherwise willing to facilitate the reform process) to either support the cause of such disqualified persons or remain silent.”
How? How do disqualified, discredited administrators hijack a board meeting in broad daylight? The transcript of the meeting, an audio recording of which has been submitted to the court by the CoA, provides a play by play account of the hijack:
Smoke and mirrors
Acting secretary of the BCCI Amitabh Choudhary kicked off the operational part of the June 26 Special General Body Meeting by recapping the various court cases and judgments that had led the BCCI to its current position. The CoA is anxious that the implementation of the Lodha recommendations is completed as soon as possible, he points out. “The Supreme Court is bound to look at this” in its hearing slated for July 14, he points out; “it is bound to find out how far we have proceeded and the fact remains that barring the disqualifications having its effect on certain sectors of the administration of the BCCI and its units, we have not really moved forward so to say.”
Choudhary then points out that the CoA has discussed with the board some of the sticky points – the one state one vote rule, the difficulty of implementing a cooling-off period for administrators as an addition to the nine-year cap, the difficulty of proceeding with only three national selectors in place of the previous five.
Suggesting that these points can be negotiated with the court, and that the CoA will help in that discussion, Choudhary concludes by framing the task before the SGM: “I have little doubt in my mind that on the 14th of July the Court will look for the distance we have travelled in implementation of the principal judgment.” Therefore, he says, the BCCI should on that day show the court considerable progress in implementation, and then submit that “there are these basic difficulties which your appointed Committee of Administrators also agrees.”
At this point, the meeting veers temporarily off the course Choundhary had just set for it. Meghalaya Cricket Association’s Naba Bhattacharya points out that the north-eastern states are still to get accreditation as full members. In consequence, cricket in the region is getting short-shrift, he argues, pointing out that it is not as if giving membership rights to the north-eastern states will deprive anyone else of their benefits. There’s a bit of back and forth at this point, before Choudhary intervenes to bring the point to a close. He says that the court order has given certain States full membership; therefore, there is no roadblock, it is just that the process has to be gone through. “The process is, the Affiliation Committee makes an assessment as in every case, and then the General Body approves it.”
The head of the Maharashtra Cricket Association. Abhay Apte now intervenes to bring the meeting back to where it started. Quickly summing up the situation in the courts, Apte points out that the court is clear the Lodha Recommendations have to be implemented. “So on one view, I agree with you completely that we have to show how far we have come and how much we have to cross. We cannot simply take a stand that no, we are not going to do anything or that this much is enough, whatever it is.” Urging yet again that due respect should be shown to the court and to the CoA, Apte says it is time for the meeting to determine what can be done.
Enter Srinivasan
Thus far, the meeting has proceeded on unexceptional lines. At this point, a hierarchically junior member of the BCCI speaks his piece. It is N Srinivasan, representative of the Perambalur District Cricket Association in Tamil Nadu (That, at least, is how his locus standi in this meeting is being rationalised though interestingly, the TNCA website still lists him as its president, and names one SK Palaniappan as the Perambalur representative).
Srini lays out his first point: nineteen member states have filed affidavits in the Supreme Court against the Lodha recommendations, he points out. Further, he says, on October 1 the BCCI member states after a meeting had listed what they can and what they cannot accept from Lodha, and this has been filed before the court. “So I have a practical suggestion,” he says, “that we recognise that the Supreme Court has not asked us to hold this meeting, the CoA has not asked us to hold this meeting.”
Notice, now, the smoke from distant Perambalur beginning to swirl around the room and obscure the collective vision. What Srinivasan leaves unsaid is that four months after the October 1 resolution, the Supreme Court ordered, in January 2017, that the Lodha recommendations have to be implemented in all its particulars. The order trumps any BCCI resolution, but Choudhary leaves that one outside his off stump and corrects Srinivasan on a relatively minor point: The SC and CoA have not asked us to hold meetings, but the BCCI president has, he points out, reminding Srini that everyone is here because acting president CK Khanna summoned the SGBM.
Srini shrugs off the correction and continues his argument. There is no guarantee, he says, that if the BCCI implements most of the Lodha recommendations and then goes back with two or three points of disagreement, the court will be amenable to reconsidering these. “This is a story like the other side of midnight,” Srinivasan says, invoking his inner Sidney Sheldon. “I am telling you, gentlemen, which is very dangerous for us.”
See where he is going now? The subtext of his argument is, if we accept some reforms, we will be forced to accept them all. The unstated corollary: Let’s not accept any reform, therefore.
And then Srinivasan plays a joker he has fished out of his sleeve. He points out that the BCCI Secretary and President, Ajay Shirke and Anurag Thakur, had been faulted by the Supreme Court for non-compliance. “Now if I agree to any suggestion to modify or dilute (the) stand we have taken, then we are letting him down completely. We are completely letting down Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke because that means they could have done something, they did not. … That I will not countenance. I am sorry, gentlemen. There is no way in which we should alter anything because that will hit our former President and Secretary. I am not going to be a party to that.”
‘Obstructed and impeded’
Recall here that Thakur, in whose defence Srinivasan is prepared to stand on the burning deck, was not only dismissed by the Supreme Court for having “obstructed and impeded” the implementation of the Lodha recommendations, but also faced showcase notices relating to contempt of court and perjury. His initial attempt at a non-apology infuriated the court, and he finally tendered an unconditional apology.
Srinivasan’s argument is breathtakingly disingenuous. In sum: The Supreme Court dismissed Thakur and Shirke because they “obstructed and impeded” the implementation of court orders. Therefore, we too should obstruct and impede those orders, because to do otherwise is to admit that the court is right.
A miffed Amitabh Choudhary chips in to say that it is unfair to equate compliance with the Supreme Court as a repudiation of two former office-bearers. Follows a bit of back and forth between the two, Srinivasan saying he didn’t mean anything personal and Choudhary sticking to his guns. Oh ok, says Srini finally, I’ll withdraw. What follows is worth quoting in full, as it is in sum the key to the hijack. Keep in mind that the initial intent of the meeting was to nail down two or three points of difference with Lodha. Cue Srini:
“The point is, we should not do something that will cast aspersions or in any way imply any doubt on our President and Secretary. Second thing, there is a, today, what we can say? What we can say that yes, as far as Lodha commission is concerned, the discussions with the CoA etc were discussed by the members. If you want, we could even go to the extent of saying, this suggestion is made by my colleague Mr Jay Shah here, we can that we ask the office bearers to form a seven-member committee including Secretary and Treasurer who will look at all the challenges that are being faced by the associations in regard to Lodha Committee etc etc, including the fact that they have filed affidavits earlier etc, and come with recommendations to the General Body of members as early as possible.”
In sum: we should do nothing concrete; we should delay, stall, obfuscate. Note how he keeps invoking Lodha, but skirts past the point that from January on, it is no longer the recommendation of a committee but the official mandate of the Supreme Court. Note, also, whose shoulder he fires this gun off of: Jay Shah, joint secretary of the Gujarat Cricket Association and son of BJP president Amit Shah. “This is a suggestion of my friend,” he says, “and I am sure he would endorse this.”
Srinivasan has now cast his bait; Abhay Apte is the first to bite. Because of some legal difficulties and to “ensure that we cross the road slowly,” Apte says, “we will have to appoint some such committee… because this is one way in which we will be complying with the advice of the Committee of Administrators.” Said CoA must have scratched its collective head at that one — its advice was to implement speedily, not invent new ways to delay and deny.
Jyotiraditya Scindia of the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association chips in at this point. Optics are important, he says. “Today the perception and optics of us as an organisation is extremely negative.” Various members chorus that yes, yes, optics are important. Scindia: “You have a court hearing coming up in July, I think 14th. We are meeting today on the 26th June and we are saying now we need to show some progress. So my first question is what have we been doing all these days? Progress cannot be shown just 15 days before a hearing because no court is so obsequious that will not see through that veil.” Ergo, he argues, the choices before the SGBM are simple: Do nothing, accept the recommendations in toto, or find a via-media. Addressing Srinivasan’s point about sticking to previous positions, he adds, “I don’t believe that necessarily because certain positions have been taken in the past, because of that legacy you still have to take those positions.”
Backroom negotiations
At this point, Srinivasan pulls out his favourite tactic: backroom negotiations. “While agreeing 100% with Scindiaji, I am suggesting a ten minute break to the President so that some of these things you know people may explain their point of view in a more informal discussion than sitting on the table like this. I think 10-15 minutes we should give…” Amitabh Choudhary is willing. Scindia is not. “I will not let that happen in the BCCI any more,” he says. “Whatever you want to say, either open your month and say it on the floor of the house or forever keep your peace.”
Rajiv Shukla, representing the Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association, choses this moment to intervene. He has a sense, he says, that the Supreme Court of today is less rigid than the one of late 2016. The CoA, he adds, is also flexible to the notion that two or three sticky points need to be discussed. Net net, he says, the situation is such that the court is willing to reopen the Lodha recommendations, which is a good thing. “So we either take advantage of this opportunity or we should take on the court.”
“We cannot take on the court,” Amitabh Choudhary interjects. True, says Shukla, and we should be careful not to give that impression. “So what we should do, as rightly suggested by him, you know the gentleman (Note the coy way he avoids mentioning Srinivasan’s name while firing off his shoulder), we should at least appoint a committee with a mandate that this committee will in a week’s time negotiate with CoA what are the common grounds which are…”
Srinivasan at this point has half of what he wanted; what he does not want is anything that remotely resembles a hard deadline. So he swiftly cuts in and drags the conversation back to where he wants it: 19 associations have filed their affidavits, what to do, we should do nothing now. Shukla says the lawyers of those associations will be in court anyway, so that is not a worry, let’s form this committee to go to the CoA and negotiate…
Srinivasan: “Not negotiate.” Let the committee study things and “advise” us, he says, but it should not deal with the CoA.
From this point on, it is all Srinivasan, batting for a committee with a loosely defined mandated and an open-ended deadline. His persistence begins to wear down any resistance and, at one point when Scindia shows signs of pushing back, Srinivasan pulls out a third argument. The CoA, he says, is not prepared to officially back the BCCI’s request that the three contentious points be renegotiated. Who did they say this to, Scindia wants to know. To the state associations, Srinivasan says.
I want to hear from the states themselves, or better still, from their lawyers, Scindia says at the state of a crisp exchange:
Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia: Let me ask them na. They are not going to believe you Srinivasanji.
Mr. N. Srinivasan: Pardon?
Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia: They are not going to believe you. Let me ask them.
Mr. N. Srinivasan: I will answer. I just want to inform you. Just give you factually.
It is a brief exchange, but in it lies the key to Srinivasan’s success. He is, here, openly being called a liar, but he doesn’t turn a hair; he refuses to be drawn into a personality clash, and stays focused on his main task. Let me ask the states, Scindia says; “I will answer,” is Srinivasan’s response. At this point, Abhay Apte chips in to help. In one of the court orders, Apte says, Justice (Dhananjay) Chandrachud “has said that the role of this proposed committee will be to find out the difficulties in implementation, if you go through the complete order.”
Mr. Amitabh Choudhary: Nahin, nahin, nahin, nahin, nahin. No, no. I don’t think that’s part of the order.
Choudhary is right and Apte is wrong — there is no such hearing; what Apte is doing here is taking a passing comment made by the judge during the hearing and giving it the force of an official order. Though Choudhary and others push back, the dyke has now sprung a full-fledged leak, and the few fingers of the rational section of the board are ineffective in stopping the flood of disinformation and distraction. Which is what Srinivasan has been working towards (emphasis added):
Mr. N. Srinivasan: So, therefore, all I am saying is we can consider maybe a committee to go into all the problems and then advise us for further courses of action in due course. Otherwise, I am very reluctant. I don’t know how Tamil Nadu or Mumbai or any one of us will ask for recall of that order. How I will go and change it now? You can’t.
Scindia makes one last futile bid to revert the meeting to what it set out to do — list three or four major objections. Not three or four, says Srinivasan — at our earlier meeting there were 16, 20 points of difference…
Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia: No, no. Hold on. Hold on. May I just finish my point, Srinivasanji. Let me just finish my point. I am asking this question to the house. I am not concerned about what all has been deliberated in the past. Okay? We are today at a juncture where we are going to face the heat. So, in addition to these four points, are there any other points that we have major objections to? I don’t know, maybe there are.
Amitabh Choudhary says “On a serious note, I don’t think so, sir.” He is promptly shouted down by a chorus of voices suggesting that there are several more points of difference. The meeting is now firmly sold on the Srinivasan argument.
A committee to discuss everything with everybody
Sourav Ganguly, representing the West Bengal Cricket Association, now chips in, to indicate that he has bought into Srinivasan’s argument. “You know, we are all together and our, my association went to the Court with an affidavit. Now to go back again on that and say we don’t want it, will be difficult.” I understand that Amitabh Choudhary is in the firing line, so I understand where he is coming from, Ganguly says, framing Choudhary’s attempts to get the SGM to stick to the agenda as a natural instinct of self-preservation. “So whatever we do we have to carry him with us and, for that matter, all of us in this room. So as a unit we need to stick together and decide this is the way we want to go. I personally feel whether the COA says or we say, whether we fight here, ultimately the Supreme Court is going to take a call. Which could, if we are lucky it goes in our way, if we are not lucky it doesn’t go in our way. Find out on 14.”
His intervention draws applause from a section of the members. And Srinivasan’s victory is now complete. He seals it with his final intervention of the meeting: “The compromise is that this committee will listen to everybody, and they can formulate and circulate and give a recommendation to the General Body. This need not be before 14th also. So long as this is completed it is sufficient.”
Interesting, that use of the word “compromise”. Hark back to the beginning. The meeting set out to tell the court that it had complied with, or would do so shortly, 85% of the court’s order; to put before the court three, maybe four, points of difference, and to ask the court to reopen those points for consideration. The meeting ended with the decision to form a committee to discuss everything with everybody, with no specific terms of reference, and to report back in its own time, and with no reference to the court’s deadlines.
This masterclass is brought to you by the representative of the Perambalur District Cricket Association.
