Rupa, die first Madam President of a unit affiliated to the BCCI is a full-Time director of India Cements Limited (ICL). she was found guilty of indirect conflict of interest for The close relationship between ICL with Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited (CSKCL). The 13-page order states that CSKCL is a part of the ICL “umbrella”.
CSKCL owns the Chennai Super Kings IPL franchise. The TNCA can challenge die Order, a copy, die with PTI, in a court of Law. The complaint was submitted by one Sanjeev Gupta from Indore, who is a former lifelong member of Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association (MPCA).
In the Order, Jain wrote, “All of these facts work on to show that a cumbersome web of Entities including CSKCL were created under the umbrella of ICL. The management and leadership of all of these entities directly or indirectly, lies in The whiteboard of ICL, notwithstanding the defense that ICL has no involvement in CSKCL, “said Jain.
“In the given scenario it can be concluded with certainty that die Respondent (Mrs. Gurunath), in Promote her role as a full-time director and promoter of ICL, has a close connection with Trustee of IC Shareholders Trust and die Directors of CSKCL with franchise agreement with die BCCI. This is one of die recognized forms of conflict of interest in Rule 38 (1) (i), “was die Order categorical.
Rule 38 (1) (i) of The BCCI constitution refers to “conflict” of Interest – direct or indirect.
“Direct or indirect interest represents: When BCCI, a member, the IPL or a franchise company enter into contractual arrangements with Entities in die the individual concerned or his / her relative, partner or close co-worker has an interest.
“This includes cases in them family Are members, partners or close co-workers in Position, die endangers or could impair individual participation, performance or unload of Roll. ”Jain watched in his command that Rupa’s be a case of “indirect” conflict of Interest, if not “direct”, as CSKCL has concluded a franchise agreement with die BCCI.
Upon completing his 21-point appointment, Jain wrote, “For all of the above reasons, the Ethics Officer is of this is a case of conflict of Interest is made out against the answerer. It is held accordingly. “
“After this die BCCI has reached the above conclusion die BCCI die required steps in accordance with Law, too ensure proper compliance of Rule 38 (2) of die regulate in case of the answerer. “
It must be mentioned that Rule 38 (2) according to the Constitution of the BCCI applies to failure of Disclosure. “….The failure to issue a complete Disclosure or a partial or total their suppression would lead to die Person would be subject to disciplinary action, die may include termination or removal without benefit.
“It clarifies that die Declaration not lead suspect that in fact a questionable situation exists, but is only for information and transparency. “
This order could be one of the last passed to Jain as his contract ends later this week on June 7th, unless die BCCI decides to extend it. It will be interesting to see what the BCCI booth would be and if they would ask Rupa for it step down from the chair of the TNCA President. It also has the discretion allow the State body speak to against die order either at a new Ethics Officer or in Dish.
Read More: Cricket News