NEW DELHI: The controversy over an in-form Mihali Raj being dropped for India's semi-final clash vs England in the recently concluded ICC Women's World T20 has snowballed into something much bigger.
With a three-member panel being formed to appoint the next Women's team coach a pandora's box seems to have been opened. Leaked email exchanges between the two members of the Supreme Court appointed Committee of Administrators, Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji suggest that the two just don't see eye to eye, at least when it comes to this issue.
On July 18 2016, the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of implementing a majority of the Lodha Committee proposals. On January 30 2017 a four member Committee of Administrators was appointed to oversee the implementation of the reforms. That committee has subsequently become a two member panel, with two members leaving. Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji are the two remaining members.
TimesofIndia.com spoke to former Chief Justice of India, Justice (retd) RM Lodha, who headed the committee that tabled the report for reforms in the BCCI.
Excerpts...
Do you think when Ramachandra Guha and Vikram Limaye left the Committee of Administrators (CoA), their positions should have been filled by appointing others?
This could have happened if the Supreme Court was informed that the two member committee is not being able to take unanimous decisions. They are court appointed administrators, they have to implement the court orders. The court would never think that they are divergent in their opinions. They have to implement the Supreme Court orders. That is their brief. Things have gone haywire, it's unfortunate.
How happy or unhappy are you with the way the reforms for the BCCI that the committee you headed recommended and those that were cleared by the Supreme Court are being implemented?
The BCCI is not serious about implementation of these reforms. Otherwise it should have been done long back. They have fought their case before the Supreme Court. Whatever pleas they had wanted to take, they have taken before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has extensively heard them and now they have no choice. Once the Supreme Court has passed the order, it's binding on all concerned. It's the law of the land. Our report was accepted as the law of the land. I am really surprised. They just can't bypass the Supreme Court order. There maybe a delay in something, but surely a Supreme Court order has to be implemented. And that was the brief that was given to the Committee of Administrators and unfortunately that has not yet happened.
What is your take on the way the Committee of Administrators (CoA) is functioning right now?
Whether it is functioning in the right way or not, I have my own doubts. Look, a two member committee has to take unanimous decisions. Even in the Supreme Court and the High Courts, it happens - two Judges sit in court. Chief Justice and junior Judge or senior Judge and junior Judge. There may be a difference of opinion. But the presiding Judge cannot say, 'no what I say is right'. Matter has to be referred to a third Judge. The problem here is it's a two member committee. There is no question of any reference etc. So all decisions have to be unanimous. Because look, the Chairman is first among equals. He does not have any overriding powers. He does not have a casting vote type thing. They (two members of the CoA) must sit together. It's a small two-member committee. Sit across the table and sort out the issues. Whatever you agree on, only those decisions should be taken.
What do you make of the emails that are being exchanged between the two members of the Committee of Administrators to communicate?
This should never happen. Look they (Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji) are both members of the committee. They are not rival parties who are building some records, so that in future should a litigation take place, these records will help them. No it doesn't happen. They are not rival parties. They are two legs of the same body. Where is the question of e-mails? Unless somebody is 10000 miles away and can't meet physically. Both are in India. They must meet, meet regularly. Why should they exchange e-mails at all?
There seems to be a big difference in opinion, particularly when it comes to the appointment of the next Women's cricket team coach
Look, I don't know when it happened. Three months back, two months back, four months back. But once they found that on any issue they were not able to take a consensual or unanimous view they must have moved the Supreme Court, saying 'it's a two member committee. We have come to a situation where (there are) certain decisions in which our views do not match, therefore kindly appoint a third person.' The Supreme Court would have appointed a third person, so that the majority view would have been final. Or the Supreme Court would have made it a 5 member committee. Or they would have reconstituted the body. All options were available with the Supreme Court, if the court was informed, that 'there are divergent views in the two member committee on several issues and we can't take decisions.'
Do you see the Supreme Court stepping in?
How does SC know about this? Unless the SC is told about this. Ultimately the brief given to this committee was to implement the reforms which were accepted by the SC. That was the whole idea. Two years have passed. Lots of issues have been taken up, some are minor, some are major. There are divergent views. They don't see eye to eye, just exchanging e-mails. Situation has come to that pass. The only course available, legally was to approach the SC and say these are the practical difficulties. The committee is not able to function. The right thing has to be done in the right way. You can't do it in a wrong manner. The committee has to be functional. The decisions have to be in accordance with the law and that is decision by majority. It's a two member committee, both have equal rights to express themselves and if they are not able to find a common path, obviously one cannot say that 'I will take this decision and that will be final.' If two members give different directives to the BCCI or its officials, how will such decisions be binding and effective?
With a three-member panel being formed to appoint the next Women's team coach a pandora's box seems to have been opened. Leaked email exchanges between the two members of the Supreme Court appointed Committee of Administrators, Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji suggest that the two just don't see eye to eye, at least when it comes to this issue.
On July 18 2016, the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of implementing a majority of the Lodha Committee proposals. On January 30 2017 a four member Committee of Administrators was appointed to oversee the implementation of the reforms. That committee has subsequently become a two member panel, with two members leaving. Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji are the two remaining members.
TimesofIndia.com spoke to former Chief Justice of India, Justice (retd) RM Lodha, who headed the committee that tabled the report for reforms in the BCCI.
Excerpts...
Do you think when Ramachandra Guha and Vikram Limaye left the Committee of Administrators (CoA), their positions should have been filled by appointing others?
This could have happened if the Supreme Court was informed that the two member committee is not being able to take unanimous decisions. They are court appointed administrators, they have to implement the court orders. The court would never think that they are divergent in their opinions. They have to implement the Supreme Court orders. That is their brief. Things have gone haywire, it's unfortunate.
How happy or unhappy are you with the way the reforms for the BCCI that the committee you headed recommended and those that were cleared by the Supreme Court are being implemented?
The BCCI is not serious about implementation of these reforms. Otherwise it should have been done long back. They have fought their case before the Supreme Court. Whatever pleas they had wanted to take, they have taken before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has extensively heard them and now they have no choice. Once the Supreme Court has passed the order, it's binding on all concerned. It's the law of the land. Our report was accepted as the law of the land. I am really surprised. They just can't bypass the Supreme Court order. There maybe a delay in something, but surely a Supreme Court order has to be implemented. And that was the brief that was given to the Committee of Administrators and unfortunately that has not yet happened.
What is your take on the way the Committee of Administrators (CoA) is functioning right now?
Whether it is functioning in the right way or not, I have my own doubts. Look, a two member committee has to take unanimous decisions. Even in the Supreme Court and the High Courts, it happens - two Judges sit in court. Chief Justice and junior Judge or senior Judge and junior Judge. There may be a difference of opinion. But the presiding Judge cannot say, 'no what I say is right'. Matter has to be referred to a third Judge. The problem here is it's a two member committee. There is no question of any reference etc. So all decisions have to be unanimous. Because look, the Chairman is first among equals. He does not have any overriding powers. He does not have a casting vote type thing. They (two members of the CoA) must sit together. It's a small two-member committee. Sit across the table and sort out the issues. Whatever you agree on, only those decisions should be taken.
What do you make of the emails that are being exchanged between the two members of the Committee of Administrators to communicate?
This should never happen. Look they (Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji) are both members of the committee. They are not rival parties who are building some records, so that in future should a litigation take place, these records will help them. No it doesn't happen. They are not rival parties. They are two legs of the same body. Where is the question of e-mails? Unless somebody is 10000 miles away and can't meet physically. Both are in India. They must meet, meet regularly. Why should they exchange e-mails at all?
There seems to be a big difference in opinion, particularly when it comes to the appointment of the next Women's cricket team coach
Look, I don't know when it happened. Three months back, two months back, four months back. But once they found that on any issue they were not able to take a consensual or unanimous view they must have moved the Supreme Court, saying 'it's a two member committee. We have come to a situation where (there are) certain decisions in which our views do not match, therefore kindly appoint a third person.' The Supreme Court would have appointed a third person, so that the majority view would have been final. Or the Supreme Court would have made it a 5 member committee. Or they would have reconstituted the body. All options were available with the Supreme Court, if the court was informed, that 'there are divergent views in the two member committee on several issues and we can't take decisions.'
Do you see the Supreme Court stepping in?
How does SC know about this? Unless the SC is told about this. Ultimately the brief given to this committee was to implement the reforms which were accepted by the SC. That was the whole idea. Two years have passed. Lots of issues have been taken up, some are minor, some are major. There are divergent views. They don't see eye to eye, just exchanging e-mails. Situation has come to that pass. The only course available, legally was to approach the SC and say these are the practical difficulties. The committee is not able to function. The right thing has to be done in the right way. You can't do it in a wrong manner. The committee has to be functional. The decisions have to be in accordance with the law and that is decision by majority. It's a two member committee, both have equal rights to express themselves and if they are not able to find a common path, obviously one cannot say that 'I will take this decision and that will be final.' If two members give different directives to the BCCI or its officials, how will such decisions be binding and effective?
Source : timesofindia[dot]indiatimes[dot]com
No comments:
Post a Comment