New Delhi, May 14 (IANS) Sachin Tendulkar and V.V.S. Laxman met the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) Ombudsman and Ethics officer D.K. Jain in the Capital on Tuesday and the two are likely to be once again represented by their respective lawyers when the second round of hearing takes place on May 20.
Complainant Sanjeev Gupta was also present separately and they have been asked to give written submission of their depositions.
They were summoned by the ombudsman after cases of alleged conflict were filed against them for their roles as IPL team mentors as well as members of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC).
In his reply, Tendulkar had torn into the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) and had said that it was on them to clear the mess that had been created.
“Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the noticee submits that it is surprising that the BCCI, being the very authority responsible for the noticee’s empanelment to the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC), is presently taking a position that the noticee is exposed to an alleged conflict of interest. It is reiterated that, the Noticee was declared as the Mumbai Indians ‘ICON’ post his retirement in 2013, which was much prior to his appointment to the CAC in 2015,” Tendulkar’s lawyer wrote to Ombudsman D.K. Jain, accessed by IANS.
“The noticee has time and again sought clarification from the BCCI on the scope of his role in the CAC” but has not received a response from BCCI. BCCI is aware that the CAC merely performs an advisory/recommendatory role — and therefore, the Noticee’s role as a Mumbai Indians Icon (which in fact has always been in the public domain) cannot, in any practical way, conflict with his involvement in the CAC.”
Laxman too echoed the sentiments.
“On December 7, 2018, we had written to the the Committee of Administrators requesting them to clarify the scope of our role and responsibilities. To this date, there has been no reply. Since no tenure had been mentioned in the letter of intent issued in 2015, it was only reasonable to expect some communication on whether the CAC was still in existence. Unfortunately that hasn’t been forthcoming,” Laxman wrote in his affidavit filed through his lawyer.