Punjab Cricket Association chief Inderjit Singh Bindra who created a storm with his criticism of Sunday’s BCCI meeting has elaborated upon the issues that transpired in the crucial meeting.
In a statement released on Monday, Bindra has said, ‘If a majority of cricket fans are disappointed with the outcome of the so-called emergency meeting of the cricket board’s working committee on Sunday, I can only offer my sympathies to them. “Though I have talked about some of the issues I am discussing here with media persons after the meeting, I thought should elaborate some of the points here.
“Soon after calling the meeting to order, board president Narayanaswamy Srinivasan shocked the gathering by saying the meeting was an informal one as a board affiliate questioned the its validity since the mandatory 72 hours notice was not given as required under the BCCI constitution.
“Many members at the meeting felt that the best course for Srinivasan was to quit as a first step to restore peoples’ faith in cricket in general and the board in particular. They were only left whispering whereas I stood up to tell Srinivasan more than once during the meeting that he should gracefully quit.
“I am surprised to find that Srinivasan had the gall to say that I did not ask for his resignation! The members who attended the meeting should now stand up and say who was telling the truth, Srini or me. Then a series of steps were initiated violating the board’s constitution. The first and foremost was the constitutional validity of asking my best friend Jagmohan Dalmiya to manage the day-to-day affairs of the board in the absence of president Narayanaswamy Srinivasan who reluctantly agreed to step aside, refusing to step down.
“The BCCI constitution has no provision for an interim or acting president and how could an eminent legal brain like Mr Arun Jaitley propose Jaggu’s name in violation of board’s constitution.
“The second shocker followed soon, this time the constitution of the probe panel to go into the alleged betting and spot-fixing involving Srinivasan’s so-in-law Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan. Any probe panel must be fair, independent and lawfully constituted with specific terms of reference. No one in the board seemed to know who actually constituted the panel and I wanted to find out which organ of the board chose the members of the panel.”