Mumbai Indians (MI) mentor Sachin Tendulkar and his Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) counterpart V.V.S. Laxman have been issued notices by BCCI Ombudsman D.K. Jain for alleged ‘conflict of interest’ in their involvement with the Indian Premier League teams as well as being a part of the still existing Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) of the BCCI. Also Read - IND vs ENG: Axar Patel Becomes First India Spinner to Pick up Five-Wicket Haul in Pink-Ball Test, Joins Mohammad Nissar, Narendra Hirwani in Coveted List
Jain has asked both Tendulkar and Laxman to send their responses by April 28. It also asked the BCCI to file its response in the matter. Also Read - Amit Shah Wants Cheteshwar Pujara to Score Double Century And Help India Beat England in Pink-Ball Test at Narendra Modi Stadium
In the notice, Jain wrote: “A complaint has been received by the Ethics Officer of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) under Article 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the BCCI, regarding certain acts, allegedly constituting as ‘conflict of interest’ on your part. Also Read - PSL 2021: Chris Gayle, Rashid Khan Return Home For National Duty After Playing Two Matches Each
“You may file your written response to the accompanying complaint, supported by duly executed affidavit, on or before 28th April 2019, with the office of the Ethics Officer, BCCI, Mumbai, for further proceedings in the matter.”
Delhi Capitals advisor Sourav Ganguly had earlier been asked to submit his role in the IPL outfit by Jain for the same reason as he is the third member of the CAC. The CAC had last picked Ravi Shastri as the coach of the national team.
Tendulkar and Laxman have been served the notices after Sanjeev Gupta, a life member of the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association, filed a complaint alleging that like Ganguly, the other two members of the CAC were also violating the BCCI’s conflict of interest rules.
In his email to Jain, Gupta had alleged that Tendulkar and Laxman breached Rule 38 of the BCCI Constitution.
“Nobody can evade by blatantly violating the Lodha reforms/Honorable Supreme Court verdict and the BCCI Constitution Rule 38 on the plea of being ‘advisor’ and ‘honorary’. In Rule 38 (4), there are many posts which are honorary [but] that does not mean that those post holders can hold more than one post at a time on the plea of being ‘honorary’,” Gupta had written.