BCCI goes on the offensive in Jadeja case

The BCCI has asked the Delhi High Court to reverse the decision that set aside the five-year ban imposed by them on Ajay Jadeja. It has also accused the arbitrator who ruled in Jadeja's favour of bias.

After Jadeja had appealed against the BCCI's ban to the Delhi High Court, the court had appointed Justice JK Mehra to to rule on the case. Mehra had decided in favour of Jadeja, contending that K Madhavan's report, which formed the basis of the BCCI ban, was "illegal and against the prinicples of natural justice".

The BCCI's counsel, CS Vaidyanathan, referred to Mehra's ruling as a "perverse finding". He mentioned that Mehra had disallowed cross-examination of Jadeja on his telephone calls to Uttam Chand, a Chennai bookie, printouts of which were already on record.

Vaidyanathan further hit out at Mehra's comment on "natural justice" by pointing out that the BCCI counsel's request to re-call Jadeja for further cross examination was rejected by Mehra, who did not deem it necessary to offer a reason for his rejection. Was this not in violation of the principles of "natural justice", queried Vaidyanathan.

Vaidyanathan went on to clarify that Madhavan's role had been merely to investigate the matter, and not to take any action. That onus was on the BCCI's disciplinary action committee, which had, in accordance with the prinicples of "natural justice", given a full hearing to Jadeja before deciding to impose the ban.

Jadeja's counsel, PP Malhotra, was not quite as convincing as his counterpart. He began the proceedings by submitting hotel records to the court in support of his contention that the BCCI counsel had earlier sought adjournments despite being in town, and had thus tried to vitiate the proceedings. The court ignored him. It asked Vaidyanathan to file a synopsis of his submissions within a week. It also directed Malhotra to file a synopsis of his arguments a week after Vaidyanathan submitted his.

July 15 has been fixed as the date of the next hearing.