BCCI ombudsman rules out Anurag Thakur conflict

File photo of Anurag Thakur (Source: Express)

BCCI ombudsman Justice AP Shah has questioned the conflict of interest allegations against Indian board secretary Anurag Thakur and national selector Vikram Rathour as he ‘fails to see any conflict of interest within the meaning of the rules’. He also asked the complainant, Niraj Gunde, to clarify his stand and specify the rule that could be applied to prove the conflict. Gunde subsequently has replied to Shah.

In his complaint, Gunde — who has filed a number of complaints against cricketers and administrators alike to the ombudsman — had alleged that Thakur and Rathour along with their families shared commercial and business interests. He also mentioned that Rathour had been appointed national selector when Thakur was holding influential and high-ranking positions within the BCCI. But in his email to Gunde, sent on January 29, Shah finds no conflict.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){ jQuery('.rel-article').bxSlider({ maxSlides: 6, slideMargin: 3 }); });

“It is alleged that Mr Thakur has had, at present and/or in the past, business connections with Mr Rathour, which allegedly have not been disclosed. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr Rathour was appointed in the Senior Selection Committee when Mr Thakur was the Jt. Secretary of the BCCI representing North Zone, and that he was re-appointed in November 2015, when Mr. Thakur was/is the Hon. Secretary of the BCCI. It is further alleged that Mr Thakur and Mr Rathour have certain financial/business connections in various companies. However, it appears to the Ombudsman that these companies have nothing to do with the BCCI or cricket,” writes Shah in his email that has been accessed by The Indian Express.

“The applicant nevertheless alleges that this situation pertains to a conflict of interest. After going through the rules for conflict of interest very carefully, the Ombudsman fails to see how the facts alleged would constitute any conflict of interest within the meaning of the rules,” he adds.

The mail is copied to BCCI president Shashank Manohar and Ratnakar Shetty, general manager (game’s development). Gunde’s original complaint had been filed on January 28. Thakur had, however, dismissed the complaint and the allegations when contacted by this paper.

“Me and Vikram’s family know each other for the last 4 decades. Our business has nothing to do with cricket. The ombudsman was not made to malign people by those who every other day are filing false complaints,” he had said.

The board secretary had also gone on to question the real intentions of the complainant, saying, “There’s a very obvious pattern if you see the kind of people who are being dragged into this from Sharad Pawar, Sourav Ganguly, RP Shah and Vikram.”

In response to the ombudsman, Gunde has cited the case of “A K Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1969) 2 SCC 262”, which he says was referred in the judgement by Justice TS Thakur and Justice Khalifullah in the case titled “Cricket Association of Bihar vs. BCCI and Ors”. He then goes on to insist that the ‘past relationship’ between Thakur and Rathour was not known to anyone in the BCCI till he brought it up in his complaint.

“Let me clarify at the outset that the issue of conflict of interest is directly connected with the duty of the conflicted person to disclose his handicap in exercising his discretion to decide this issue, whether it be in a collective forum or as an individual,” he writes in his mail dated February 2.

“That conflict can lead to exercise of influence in a subtle, discreet and seamless manner is incontrovertible. When both have business interest, can it truly be expected that Shri Anurag Thakur would be totally dispassionate when it comes to cricketing affairs? Leave alone whether he was or was not, can it be said that the process in which he participated could be seen to be fair and clean, particularly when he deliberately chose to hide this relationship with the candidate from BCCI?” he adds.