CONFLICT OF INTEREST? RETIREMENT POSTINGS OF SOME FORMER CBI DIRECTORS

AP SINGH

CBI DIRECTOR, NOVEMBER 2010 TO NOVEMBER 2012

UPA GOVERNMENT APPOINTED HIM MEMBER, UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMISSION (UPSC) IN 2013 AFTER HIS RETIREMENT

RESIGNED IN JANUARY 2015 AFTER HE WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE LINKS WITH CONTROVERSIAL MEAT EXPORTER MOIN QURESHI

ACCUSED IN A CORRUPTION CASE, THE MEAT EXPORTER WAS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN UNDUE FAVOURS BY AP SINGH

CBI REGISTERED CASE AGAINST HIM, MOIN QURESHI AND OTHERS IN FEBRUARY 2017

ASHWANI KUMAR

IPS OFFICER, CBI DIRECTOR, AUGUST 2008 TO NOVEMBER 2010

AMIT SHAH WAS ARRESTED IN SOHRABUDDIN SHEIKH FAKE ENCOUNTER CASE DURING HIS TENURE

APPOINTED GOVERNOR OF NAGALAND IN MARCH 2013, RESIGNED IN JUNE 2014

P C SHARMA

IPS OFFICER, CBI DIRECTOR, APRIL 2001 TO DECEMBER 2003

AFTER REITREMENT FROM CBI, WAS APPOINTED MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (NHRC) BY THE THEN NDA GOVERNMENT IN MARCH 2004

VIJAY SHANKER

1969 BATCH IPS OFFICER, CBI DIRECTOR, DECEMBER 2005 TO JULY 2008

AFTER RETIREMENT FROM CBI, HE WAS MADE MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ON CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS

M L SHARMA

IPS OFFICER FROM RAJASTHAN CADRE, WAS SPECIAL DIRECTOR IN CBI, RETIRED IN 2009

HE WAS CONTENDER FOR CBI DIRECTOR POST

BUT WAS APPOINTED CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (CIC) MEMBER AFTER RETIREMENT

RK RAGHAVAN

TAMIL NADU CADRE IPS OFFICER, CBI DIRECTOR, JANUARY 1999 TO APRIL 2001

HEADED THE PROBE WHICH CLEARED NARENDRA MODI IN 2002 GUJARAT RIOTS

SC APPOINTED SIT UNDER RAGHAVAN IN 2008 – ITS REPORT CAME IN 2012 GIVING CLEAN CHIT TO MODI

APPOINTED INDIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER TO CYPRUS IN AUGUST 2017

©SantoshChaubey

Advertisements

CONFLICT OF INTEREST? PEOPLE WHO GOT PLUM RETIREMENT POSTINGS

VINDO RAI

11TH COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL (CAG) OF INDIA, JANUARY 2008 TO MAY 2013, AN IAS OF 1972 BATCH

WAS CHOSEN TO HEAD THE FIRST BANK BOARD BUREAU (BBB) IN FEBRUARY 2016

BBB IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN AUTONOMOUS BODY LOOKING INTO GOVERNANCE RELATED MATTERS OF PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

THE BBB MANDATE ALSO INCLUDES THE ALL POWERFUL DECISION ON APPOINTING CHIEFS OF PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS MADE HIM ITS ADVISOR IN JANUARY 2015, HIS HELP WAS SOUGHT TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY AND INCREASE TRANSPARENCY IN THE SYSTEM

AT THE CENTRE OF 2G SPECTRUM ALLOCATION CONTROVERSY AFTER COURT ACQUITTAL OF ALL ACCUSED

THE COURT VERDICT VITUALLY REJECTED HIS 1.76 LAKH CRORE LOSS CLAIM IN 2G SPECTRUM ALLOCATION

CONGRESS AND OTHER PARTIES NAMED IN THE SCAM ARE CALLING HIM TO FACE QUESTIONS IN THE PARLIAMENT, ARE DEMANDING HIS APOLOGY, CALLING HIM A BJP AGENT

JUSTICE P SATHASIVAM

WAS CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA FROM AUGUST 2013 TO APRIL 2014

MADE KERALA GOVERNOR IN SEPTEMBER 2014

JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN

RETIRED AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA ON MAY 12, 2010

APPOINTED NHRC CHAIRMAIN IN JUNE 2010

NN VOHRA

HE WAS PERSONAL SECRETARY TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA (1997-98)

J&K INTERLOCUTOR FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA – SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR CARRYING OUT DIALOGUE (2003-2008)

WAS MADE J&K GOVERNOR IN 2008

HIS SECOND GUBERNATORIAL TERM IN J&K BEGAN IN APRIL 2013

MS GILL

CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, FROM DECEMBER 1996 TO JUNE 2001

WAS ELECTED TO RAJYA SABHA IN APRIL 2004 AND RE-ELECTED IN APRIL 2010

BECAME MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) IN THE MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS & SPORTS IN MAY 2009

SUBSEQUENTLY HELD OTHER MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITES IN THE MANMOHAN SINGH CABINET

RAJIV MATHUR

A FORMER IB DIRECTOR, FROM 2008 TO 2010

BECAME CIC IN MARCH 2014

B.V. WANCHOO

A RETIRED IPS OFFICER, WAS CLOSE TO GANDHI FAMILY, HEADED SPG

MADE GOA GOVERNOR IN MAY 2012

RESIGNED IN JULY 2014 WHEN QUESTIONED AS A WITNESS IN AGUSTA CASE

ESL NARASIMHAN

RETIRED INTELLIGENCE BUREAU CHIEF

MADE CHHATTISGARH GOVERNOR IN JANUARY 2007

MADE ANDHRA PRADESH GOVERNOR IN JANUARY 2010, BEGAN SECOND TERM AS ANDHRA GOVERNOR IN MAY 2012

TOOK CHARGE AS TELANGANA GOVERNORN AS WELL WHEN THE STATE WAS OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED ON 2 JUNE 2014

M.K. NARAYANAN

RETIRED INTELLIGENCE BUREAU CHIEF AND FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR

MADE WEST BENGAL GOVERNOR IN JANUARY 2010, RESIGNED IN JUNE 2014

WAS QUESTIONED AS WITNESS IN AGUSTA SCAM, WAS FIRST GOVERNOR TO BE INVESTIGATED IN THE VVIP CHOPPER SCAM

RAHUL KHULLAR

A FORMER IAS OFFICER

EX-COMMERCE SECRETARY AND PERSONAL SECRETARY TO PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH

WAS APPOINTED TRAI CHAIRMAN IN MAY 2012

ASHWANI KUMAR

IPS OFFICER AND FORMER CBI DIRECTOR

AMIT SHAH WAS ARRESTED IN SOHRABUDDIN SHEIKH FAKE ENCOUNTER CASE DURING HIS TENURE

APPOINTED GOVERNOR OF NAGALAND IN MARCH 2013, RESIGNED IN JUNE 2014

NIKHIL KUMAR

FORMER DELHI POLICE COMMISSIONER AND EX NATIONAL SECURITY GUARDS CHIEF

WAS MADE NAGALAND GOVERNOR IN OCTOBER 2015, TRANSFERRED TO KERALA IN MARCH 2013

RESIGNED IN MARCH 2014 TO CONTEST LOK SABHA ELECTIONS, HAD ALSO CONTESTED 2009 LS ELECTION BUT LOST

BL JOSHI

A FORMER IPS OFFICER, NEHRU-GANDHI FAMILY LOYALIST – LOOKED AFTER THEIR SECURITY RIGHT FROM JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU

WAS APPOINTED LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI IN JUNE 2004

RESIGNED AND MADE MEGHALAYA GOVERNOR IN APRIL 2007

APPOINTED UTTARAKHAND GOVERNOR IN OCT 2007 AND UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNOR IN JULY 2009

GOT SECOND UP TERM IN MARCH 2014 BUT RESIGNED IN JUNE THAT YEAR

AND THE LIST IS CERTAINLY NOT EXHAUSTIVE! 

©SantoshChaubey

SUPREME COURT’S BCCI/IPL VERDICT: REFRESHINGLY ENGAGING

Reading it is refreshingly engaging.

By the nature of the issue in question, some Supreme Court judgements become landmark, redefining the way the matter concerning the issue would be seen in future.

That is going to be the case with Cricket after the yesterday’s verdict by the Supreme Court of India. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), an outfit draped in secrecy so far, manages affairs of cricket in India and is largely responsible for bringing bad name to the game, a game that has been a mass phenomenon in India, making Indian cricketers and the Indian Board richest among their peers in the world fraternity.

The IPL Spot Fixing Verdict by the Supreme Court Bench of Justice T. S. Thakur and Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla has the potential to change the way BCCI has managed the affairs of the game so far, and is for good, aiming to bring and strengthen the elements of transparency and answerability in cricket’s administration in India.

The some 130 pages verdict focuses heavily on cleaning the game with observations like:

“Such is the passion for this game in this country that cricketers are seen as icons by youngsters, middle aged and the old alike. Any organization or entity that has such pervasive control over the game and its affairs and such powers as can make dreams end up in smoke or come true cannot be said to be undertaking any private activity.”

“The BCCI has in no uncertain terms declared its resolve to protect the fundamental imperatives constituting the essence of the game of cricket and its determination to take every step in its power to prevent corrupt betting practices undermining the integrity of the sport including any effort to influence the outcome of any match. Unfortunately, however, the amendment to Rule 6.2.4 (allowing BCCI administrators to have commercial interests in BCCI products like IPL) clearly negates the declarations and resolves of the BCCI by permitting situations in which conflict of interest would grossly erode the confidence of the people in the authenticity, purity and integrity of the game.”

“An amendment which strikes at the very essence of the game as stated in the Anti Corruption Code cannot obviously co-exist with the fundamental imperatives.”

“Conflict of interest situation is a complete anti-thesis to everything recognized by BCCI as constituting fundamental imperatives of the game hence unsustainable and impermissible in law.”

“The question is whether the BCCI can afford to see the game lose its credibility in the eyes of those who watch it, by allowing an impression to gather ground that what goes on in the name of the game is no more than a farce because of sporting frauds like betting, match fixing and the like.”

“Can the BCCI live with the idea of the game being seen only as a means to cheat the unsuspecting and gullible spectators watching the proceedings whether in the stadium or on the television with the passion one rarely sees in any other sporting enterprise.”

“BCCI’s commercial plans for its own benefit and the benefit of the players are bound to blow up in smoke, if the people who watch and support the game were to lose interest or be indifferent because, they get to know that some business interests have hijacked the game for their own ends or that the game is no longer the game they know or love because of frauds on and off the field.”

“There is no manner of doubt whatsoever that the game enjoys its popularity and raises passions only because of what it stands for and because the people who watch the sport believe that it is being played in the true spirit of the game without letting any corrupting influence come anywhere near the principles and fundamental imperatives considered sacrosanct and inviolable.”

“All told whatever be the format of the game and whatever be the commercial angles to it, the game is what it is, only if it is played in its pristine form free from any sporting fraud.”

“The fundamental imperatives, to which BCCI is avowedly committed in the Anti Corruption Code, cannot be diluted leave alone neglected or negated.”

“BCCI is a very important institution that discharges important public functions. Demands of institutional integrity are, therefore, heavy and need to be met suitably in larger public interest. Individuals are birds of passage while institutions are forever. The expectations of the millions of cricket lovers in particular and public at large in general, have lowered considerably the threshold of tolerance for any mischief, wrong doing or corrupt practices which ought to be weeded out of the system.”

And as a natural corollary, major part of the verdict deliberates on addressing the issue of ‘conflict of interest’ and its unethical realms engulfing BCCI and how BCCI is answerable to the people of India with its ‘public duties’.

“The functions of the Board are clearly public functions, which, till such time the State intervenes to takeover the same, remain in the nature of public functions, no matter discharged by a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act.”

Cricket has been like a religion in India. If we have discourses like ‘cricket’s ungentlemanly avatar’ or ‘cricket losing popularity in India’ or ‘cricket is no more a religion in India’, BCCI has to carry the blame for it, because in the blind rush to maintain a tight grip on its culture of secrecy and ‘cronyism’ and to further the vested interests as with commercialization came the increased wealth creation opportunities, the BCCI top brass started going even lower, breaking all norms of probity and N. Srinivasan was its worst manifestation.

That worst manifestation saw its spell lifting yesterday.

IPL Fixing

SUPREME COURT’S BCCI/IPL VERDICT: REFRESHINGLY ENGAGING

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey–https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/

IPL VERDICT: SEVEN QUESTIONS SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT IS BASED ON

The seven questions the Supreme Court deliberated on to lay down the roadmap to the further course of action to clean BCCI, to cleanse Indian Cricket to take the IPL Spot Fixing probe to its final conclusion are:

1. If BCCI comes under judicial review?

The apex court says yes. The Verdict reads – BCCI may not be State under Article 12 of the Constitution but is certainly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. If Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were team officials and if they were involved in betting?

The court says yes to both.

3. If Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were team officials and if they were found guilty, what would be the future course of action?

The verdict copy reads – The misconduct against these two individuals is actionable as per the relevant rules to which we have referred in detail. Not only that, we have held that action under the rules can also be taken against the franchisees concerned. We have noticed that that the quantum of sanction/punishment can vary depending upon the gravity of the misconduct of the persons committing the same.

4. If N Srinivasan was involved in covering-up the IPL Spot Fixing episode?

The court says no – but not without making scathing remarks on Srinivasan’s overall conduct, putting him in the dock. The verdict says the allegation wasn’t proved but it doesn’t mean the allegation was baseless. The court does accepts the ‘element of suspicion’ on the part of Srinivasan’s conduct in the spot-fixing cover-up affair.

5. If the BCCI amendment of its Regulation 6.4.2 allowing its administrators to have commercial interests in IPL, Champions League and Twenty-20 was legally unethical and unacceptable?

The court says yes, it was ‘legally bad’ – The Amendment to Rule 6.2.4 permitting Administrators of BCCI to acquire or hold commercial interests in BCCI like IPL, champions league and T-20 held to be bad.

The court struck down the amendment saying Srinivasan’s simultaneous roles as the BCCI chief and IPL team owner were a clear-cut case of ‘conflict of interest’ and the conduct was not acceptable and Srinivasan needed to choose between BCCI and IPL.

6. If Sundar Raman, the IPL Chief Operating Officer (COO) was guilty?

The Supreme Court has ordered further probe on Sundar Raman’s role in the IPL Spot Fixing scandal, placing him firmly under scanner.

The verdict elaborates: Mr. Sundar Raman was, and continues to be the Chief Operating Officer of IPL. He has held and continues to hold a very important position in the entire system. On his own showing he was dealing with practically all aspects of organization of the game, including facilitating whenever necessary the appearance and participation of celebrities and organizing tickets, accreditation cards and such other matters. He was, therefore, the spirit behind the entire exercise and cannot be said to be unconcerned with what goes on in the course of the tournament especially if it has the potential of bringing disrepute to the game/BCCI.

We are, therefore, not inclined to let the allegations made against Mr. Sundar Raman go un-probed, even if it means a further investigation by the investigating team provided to the probe committee or by any other means. Truth about the allegations made against Mr. Sundar Raman, must be brought to light, for it is only then that all suspicions about the fraudulent activities and practices floating in the media against the BCCI and its administrators in several proceedings before different courts can be given a quietus.

7. What should be the future course of action – on cleaning BCCI and cleansing Cricket run by it and taking the IPL Spot Fixing probe to its finality?

Giving directions on N Srinivasan, Sundar Raman, Raj Kundra, Gurunath Meiyappan, Chennai Super Kings, Rajasthan Royals, BCCI and IPL Spot Fixing episode – the court formed a three member committed to be headed by R. M. Lodha, former Chief Justice – to probe the matter further and to come with guidelines on revamping BCCI – with a deadline of six months. Ashok Bhan and R. V. Raveendran, former Supreme Court judges are other members of the committee.

IPL Fixing

IPL VERDICT: SEVEN QUESTIONS SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT IS BASED ON

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey–https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/