Diana Edulji pulls up BCCI CEO Rahul Johri for ‘lack of professionalism’, accuses him of insubordination

In a letter, accessed by Hindustan Times, Edulji has said that Johri’s action is, in no way, a sign of professionalism. She has also asked the CEO to refer to the order of the SC and understand that unilateral instructions from one member of the CoA — Vinod Rai — can’t be followed.

The Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) member Diana Edulji had on Friday asked BCCI CEO Rahul Johri and GM Cricket Operations Saba Karim to keep the announcement of the next India women’s coach at abeyance. But immediately after the mail, the board issued a release naming WV Raman as the coach. Surprised by the unilateral decision-making and following of instructions, Edulji had asked the duo to explain their action. Having gone through Johri’s reply, Edulji has called him out for lack of ‘professionalism’.

File image of BCCI CEO Rahul Johri and CoA member Diana Edulji.

In a letter, accessed by Hindustan Times, Edulji has said that Johri’s action is, in no way, a sign of professionalism. She has also asked the CEO to refer to the order of the Supreme Court on January 30, 2017 and understand that unilateral instructions from one member of the CoA — Vinod Rai — cannot be followed.

“Less said the better about the professionalism and propriety. It is not to be talked about but shown and sadly it is lacking in your approach and actions which itself amounts to insubordination. Read this carefully as mentioned in SC order of 30th January 2017 and the COA directions of 23rd August 2018: “The C.E.O. of B.C.C.I. shall report to the Committee of Administrators and the Administrators shall supervise the management of B.C.C.I.”

“Since the administration and functioning of BCCI is to be done under the supervision of COA including your functioning, there should have been no doubt about it in your approach and actions. You had no business to go for an opinion without COA approval and on your own. Every time there is a doubt, read the SC order and the directions of COA. And since CAM had clarified that the COA chairman has no casting vote how did you proceed on unilateral instructions?” she enquired.

Pointing on how Johri and Karim’s action was insubordination, she wrote: “You are not suppose to act on your own in any matter unless it is approved by both the COA members and not on unilateral instructions of any one of COA member.”

Edulji went on to add that Johri’s action in announcing the name of the next coach was improper on his part. “This is an improper conduct by you substantially prejudicial to the BCCI’s interest and gross misconduct in discharge of your duties which can lead to action as per Point IV Clause C (i) of your employment agreement,” she wrote.

This after Johri had in his mail explained to Edulji how his action of going ahead and naming the coach was a case of acting in accordance of the instruction received from Rai and the legal advice given on the matter.

“The BCCI management has acted strictly in accordance with instruction issued by chairman CoA and in accordance with legal advice received. We have already shared a copy of the legal opinion of eminent jurist Justice ( Retd ) Srikrishna, which speaks for itself. The BCCI management has at all times acted in the best interest of the organisation and in accordance with the highest standards of professionalism and propriety.

“Everyone would have preferred to have the CoA speak in one voice, but unfortunately that is not the case and in the interest of the game and the organisation, the BCCI management is duty bound to find the most appropriate way forward. This approach is wholly consistent with the legal opinion provided by Justice (Retd.) Srikrishna. In view of the above, we respectfully disagree with you that our conduct in any way amounts to insubordination,” he had written.

Speaking to Hindustan Times, a senior BCCI official said that if an office-bearer had done the same as the CEO, the repercussions would have been severe.

“The so called standards of professionalism are laughable. All hell would have broken loose if an office bearer had directly violated the instructions of a member of the CoA no matter what doctrine he would have referred to. What Johri is essentially saying is that it is okay to circumvent the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court provided he can source an opinion from a Jurist who has been provided half baked information in order to get a favourable opinion,” he smiled.

The official said that continuing with Raman was the best option as he was already employed with the board and handling the ‘A’ team. This urge to name the coach he feels had more to do with proving a point.

“They have only shared that part of the opinion that suits them. The fact of the matter is that there was no occasion here to invoke the doctrine of necessity in the interest of the organisation. It was only necessary in the interest of Rai and Johri and not the organisation. WV Raman was already employed with the BCCI and handling India A when Dravid was occupied elsewhere. He could have been asked to handle the team till there was clarity or the resolution of this deadlock. The necessity was only to ensure Rai and Johri have their way albeit irregularly. A controversy would take the attention away from the earlier metoo controversy,” he said.