Conflict-of-interest more widespread, deep-rooted than fixing in Indian sports
By Qaiser Mohammad Ali
Indo-Asian News Service (IANS)
New Delhi,
June 6 (IANS) Turning to senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who was representing then
Indian cricket board president N. Srinivasan, Chief Justice of India T.S.
Thakur said bias in a conflict of interest situation happens in a "subtle
way".
Thakur said
that on December 8, 2014, while hearing the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal in
which Srinivasan, whose son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and others were central
figures, was battling to come out of the conflicted zone.
Thakur had
made the "subtle way" comment specifically when Srinivasan was trying
to constitute a committee to probe the IPL betting-fixing scandal. Some members
of that committee were also conflicted and the panel was eventually not
accepted by the Supreme Court.
Separately,
as secretary and later president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India
(BCCI), Srinivasan would attend Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council
meetings, and was thus aware of the decisions the BCCI was taking. It's
difficult to believe that he never shared the discussions, or decisions taken,
within the BCCI with his own IPL franchise, Chennai Super Kings (CSK), and did
not take undue advantage of that.
More than
six years later, Srinivasan's daughter, Rupa, finds herself in a similar
situation -- in the conflict-of-interest zone. The person who spotted her there
is a retired Supreme Court judge, D.K. Jain. He pronounced his judgment as the
BCCI Ethics Officer on June 3.
Rupa
Gurunath was elected TNCA president, succeeding her father, in September 2019.
Her husband, Gurunath Meiyappan, had already been banned for life by the
Supreme Court for his role in the same 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal. Rupa
holds two posts -- of TNCA president and a Whole Time Director of India Cements
Limited (ICL), which runs the Chennai Super Kings Cricket Ltd (CSKCL) that owns
IPL franchise CSK.
These two
are high profile cases that have caught the eye. In reality, there are any
number of conflicted persons at lower levels whose unethical deeds never come
to light, they do it in such a "subtle way". Usually, powerful people
back these conflicted persons. These powerful persons are mostly politicians
and businessmen spread across sports in India.
So, that
brings us to the question: Who has harmed cricket -- or sports, in general --
the most in India? Many people would say that it is the people involved in
match-fixing/betting.
However, I
feel the conflict of interest is the biggest curse and misfortunate of Indian
cricket, rather Indian sports. Match-fixing is probably not as deep rooted and
as widespread as the conflict of interest, if closely seen across all sports,
not just cricket, played in the country. The conflict of interest is everywhere;
only the degree to which it influences varies. Sometimes it is blatant, as the
Supreme Court and one of its judges (Jain) saw in the cases of Srinivasan and
Rupa, respectively. At other times, it happens in a "subtle way".
Match-fixing
may not be found in all competitive sports. But the conflict of interest is
present across the spectrum; no Indian sport can claim it is not influenced by
the conflicted people. Be it election of sports bodies or selection of
athletes/teams, the conflict of interest is found everywhere -- in different
forms at different levels.
Most of the
conflicted persons are sports administrators, selectors, or coaches. If their
brothers/sisters/sons/daughters/nephews/nieces are also playing cricket -- or
any other sport -- in which their elders hold positions, the
conflict-of-interest becomes obvious and blatant. It will be rare to find
selectors, sports administrators, coaches clear of the conflict.
The conflict
of interest is not restricted to selection of the "near and dear ones"
by their fathers and uncles. It plays with full gusto while awarding contracts
of constructing stadiums, laying of astro turfs/athletic tracks, athletes'
clothing, sponsorship, supply of food during competitions, erecting tents, etc.
The list is so long and varied that the mind boggles.
The conflict
of interest is more widespread and blatant in cricket because there is more
money to be made from it than in any other sport in India. The case of certain
officials of the BCCI and its affiliated state associations, particularly the
TNCA, is a case in point.
In cricket,
sponsors pay more money, the requirements for the BCCI-organised tournaments
are much bigger than the other sports. So, obviously more people come into the
conflict zone as they often award these contracts and rights to their known
ones, many times without following the laid down process of tender etc. The
Delhi and District Cricket Association is notorious in this regard and leads
the way.
Also,
retired cricketers open academies in their names and then when confronted they
claim they don't benefit from the fee that trainees pay. They insist they are
run by their mothers, fathers, or brothers, as the case may be, saying they
only lend their names. Many of these cricketers also sit in selection
committees and become coaches. Would you believe them that they never influence
selection of players, either blatantly or in a "subtle way",
particularly if their sons and nephews are in contention? Impossible.
So, it
should not have taken more than five months, since the time the complaint was
filed, for the BCCI Ethics Officer to declare that TNCA president Rupa Gurunath
was indeed in the conflicted zone. The conflict was so obvious.
Interestingly,
the BCCI did not respond to the notice of Justice DK Jain. The reason is not
far to seek: Srinivasan's is one of the four groups that had formed the
coalition in October 2019 to come to power without having to fight an election.
They at all
costs wanted to get rid of the Vinod Rai-headed Committee of Administrators,
appointed by the Supreme Court, that had been running the BCCI for around 33
months, following the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal.
The bright
side of all this is that at least the BCCI has an Ombudsman, though he at times
is rendered powerless. Some sports federations might also have appointed
Ombudsman. But have you heard any of them delivering judgments of the same
magnitude as delivered as in the case of Rupa Gurunath? Or, any judgment at
all.
"Purity
of the game has to be maintained at any cost. Persons at the helm of affairs
should be above suspicion. We are thinking in the larger interest of the game.
There should be no chance for people to point fingers at those who are running
the show," the TS Thakur-headed Supreme Court bench, also comprising FMI
Kalifulla, had said in December 2014 while hearing the IPL scandal.
The already
side-lined Srinivasan, whose son-in-law Meiyappan was in sharp focus in the IPL
scandal, had offered to keep away from the BCCI-initiated probe involving
Meiyappan and others.
The bench
countered that by asking Srinivasan's counsel Sibal: "You [Srinivasan] say
even if elected you will stay away from decision making against those found
guilty. But the question is even then can the decision of BCCI be seen as a
fair decision? Will not he be exercising his influence in some way or other?
Bias in such situation happens in a subtle way."
(This story
was first published by IANS on June 6, 2021)
