The BCCI is currently trying to disentangle itself and one of its employees from the #MeToo shock waves that are running through Indian public life. The due process, which needs to take its course in regard to the board's CEO, Rahul Johri, who is the subject of an anonymous complaint of sexual harassment, is now underway. In the next few weeks the BCCI's legal team will study Johri's explanation, which he has been given a week to file; if required, so will the BCCI's internal complaints committee. The onus on them - and indeed on the BCCI's Committee of Administrators (CoA), as well as its president, CK Khanna; secretary, Amitabh Chaudhary; and treasurer, Anirudh Chaudhry - is great because the BCCI's wider dispute-resolution mechanism is broken. The board is currently without an ombudsman to deal with disputes relating to finance, contracts, detriments caused, misconduct and indiscipline.
And so the board's internal complaints committee, set up in April 2018, is suddenly handling the first (very) hot potato in its brief history. The committee is headed by BCCI counsel Karina Kripalani; general manager operations, Saba Karim; accounts department employee Rupawati Rao; and an external member, Mumbai-based women's-rights lawyer Veena Gowda. Efforts to reach out to Kripalani to ascertain what steps are being contemplated were unsuccessful. Avoiding questions about how the Johri inquiry will be handled will not make them go away.
Johri is under administrative inquiry by his employers - not a judicial examination. There are a couple of facts in his favour: the incident described in the Twitter post took place when he was in his previous job, and not during his time at the BCCI. The anonymous accuser, whose story was tweeted by a verified Twitter account, has not made a formal complaint. So according to the book, all Johri has to say in his defence is, "It is not true." Yet without listening to the accuser, this examination does appears somewhat incomplete.
Why is this process important? Because the CEO of the wealthiest, most high-profile sports organisation in India, and the richest board in cricket, which owns the world's seventh richest media rights property (the IPL), has an allegation - though anonymous - against him of sexual harassment. In the #MeToo era, a string of predatory men across fields - business, entertainment, sport, culture, politics - have found themselves in the dock of social media and public perception, facing consequences of one kind or another. Whether they are innocent or guilty, the processes in place not only need to be thorough and rigorous, they need to be seen to be so.
There's another reason. The BCCI's office in Mumbai office has 122 staff - including employees, staff on retainers, and consultants - of whom 21 are women. The current environment in the office can only be awkward, with the families of employees raising questions to them about the nature of their workplace. This #MeToo rumblings around Johri, the BCCI's de facto leader, will disconcert employees, who will have hoped that, in the wake of the reforms mandated by the Justice Lodha committee, the BCCI would have been able to ensure that its sharpest suits stayed free of medieval mindsets.
"A string of predatory men across fields have found themselves in the dock of social media and public perception. Whether they are innocent or guilty, the processes in place not only need to be thorough and rigorous, they need to be seen to be so"
It is also suggested that as the BCCI's first CEO from outside their ranks, Johri, with his increasing clout, has sidelined several old BCCI officials, who resent his reach, his position and his salary. The accusations against him, it is said, are coloured by the hostility of his rivals. It may well be so, but that cannot be the reason to either let those accusations slide, or to not attempt to grasp them in their complex detail. A few months after his hiring as BCCI CEO in June 2016, Johri had to deal with allegations of harassment from his former job. It is not clear whether this most recent allegation was about the same incident as that January 2017 one, only with more terrifying details provided.
It is not for the first time that Indian cricket has dealt with complaints regarding conduct towards women. In August 2009, V Chamundeswarnath was removed from the Andhra Cricket Association following complaints by women cricketers. Earlier this year, there was swift action by cricket authorities following complaints by several women against a senior cricket journalist about impersonation, stalking and harassment. Neither of these two individuals were BCCI employees, however. The BCCI's response to this latest allegation will carry weight and might offer clues on how to best handle future crises - because they will keep coming.
At the outset, Johri's case could be examined under the framework of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Regardless of the law stating that any organisation with over ten employees must have a harassment-redressal mechanism in place, the BCCI's internal complaints committee came into being only in April 2018. This followed an inter-departmental transfer of a female staffer, which was highlighted six months later in a letter from whistleblower Aditya Verma, whose public-interest litigation over the IPL corruption scandal in 2013 set in motion the revamp of the BCCI ordered by the Supreme Court.
The details of that transfer remain hazy. There is no official word on whether the staffer was moved to another department due to issues of professional communication between superior and subordinate, or harassment, or events leading from one to the other. BCCI staffers confirmed that the female employee was transferred, but outside of a tight group including Johri, the staffer herself, and the CoA (Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji), there is no other clear information available. What is undeniable is that the BCCI's internal complaints committee was formed only after the staffer's move.
In the Johri case, what Indian cricket and the BCCI's staffers need is clarity from a proactive administration. To start with, the board could move ahead, as some other organisations have done in cases like this, despite the lack of a complaint. *The internal committee cannot act on a case against the head of the organisation itself, and must ideally move it to the local government committee, relating to sexual harassment. Yet now what the BCCI can be pushed to do is set up an external body that will, for one, reach out to the anonymous complainant. It may be beyond the strict definitions of the rule book, but this is a chance to find the sunlight that can disinfect the arena.
*15:19:33 GMT, October 22, 2018: This sentence was added to the article