The three members of an inquiry committee appointed by the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) to investigate allegations against BCCI CEO Rahul Johri has concluded that all charges of sexual harassment against the latter are “false and baseless” and that he should continue to work in his existing capacity with the cricket board. The committee submitted its findings last week.
Former Allahabad High Court Justice Rakesh Sharma, former chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women Barkha Singh and advocate Veena Gowda were part of the three-member committee constituted by the CoA on October 30, 2018 after an anonymous tweet – as part of the ongoing #MeToo campaign – named Johri. The committee submitted its report to the CoA in which all three members were unanimous that the allegations of sexual harassment against Johri were incorrect. Two of the three members stated that the allegations against Johri were “mischievous, false, fabricated and unsubstantiated.” However, the third member - Veena Gowda - was of the view that Johri needed to undergo “gender sensitivity counselling.” Gowda, however, hasn’t found any truth in allegations of sexual harassment against Johri.
The CoA members – Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji – however are not on the same page on this issue. While Rai concludes that “Johri should continue as CEO of the BCCI and resume his duties as a natural consequence” of the report, Edulji is of the opinion that she does not agree with the conclusions of Justice Sharma and Barkha Singh. A statement quoting Edulji’s view on the matter aid: “The report of the committee is actually a split 2:1 verdict and Johri should be asked to tender his resignation with immediate effect.”
Edulji alludes to the finding in Veena Gowda’s recommendations to the effect that as a CEO of an institution such as BCCI, the unprofessional and inappropriate conduct of Johri would adversely affect the reputation of BCCI. With the CoA split on the matter, Rai – as chairman of the SC-appointed Committee – has concluded that Johri should continue. An extract from the finding says, “The complainants have failed to provide their cases as set up by them and we (me and Barkha Singh) are of the opinion that Rahul Johri has not abused his powers. The allegations of sexual harassment in the office or elsewhere are false, baseless and have been fabricated and manufactured with an ulterior motive to harm (Johri) and throw him out of BCCI as indicated in some communications, and reactions expressed in the e-mails, statements in the press”.
Barkha Singh further adds: “I would like to place on record that in my nine years of tenure as Chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women, I have come across many incidents and supported the cause of a women. It becomes our duty for providing equal opportunity for woman at work place. In my opinion, such kind of motivated and fabricated allegations (as the ones against Johri) will diminish the status of women and the job opportunity for them. Such complaints will also have an adverse effect on the fight for equality for women. Setting such precedents will only make it more difficult for achieving equality and equal opportunity for women”.
However, Gowda is of the view that some of the consequential observations made in this matter recommended action. “The conduct of Rahul Johri in Birmingham, as CEO of an institution such as BCCI is unprofessional and inappropriate which would adversely affect its reputation and the same has to be looked at by the concerned authorities. In view of his conduct at Birmingham as well as keeping in mind the allegations made by Ms.X (unnamed complainant) and his conduct before this committee with respect to the photographs submitted, it is essential that Mr Johri undergo some form of gender sensitivity counselling / training,” says Gowda.
Justice Sharma and Barkha Singh further added that a “grievance redressal committee/ cell” may be constituted in BCCI in the interest of women employees.” Having said that, the two members of the independent committee further add: “It would be pre-mature, unjust and unfair to recommend any action against Rahul Johri on the basis of material placed (before the committee).”