Ombudsman notice to Tendulkar, Laxman, cricketers doing voluntary service
New Delhi: Legendary Sachin Tendulkar and batting maestro VVS Laxman were Wednesday served notices by BCCI's Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer D K Jain for their alleged 'conflict of interest' by serving as mentors of IPL franchise as well as member of Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC).
Tendulkar is Mumbai Indians' mentor and Laxman is in the same capacity for Sunrisers Hyderabad.
This is the third case of conflict of interest allegation being filed after former skipper Sourav Ganguly had to appear before Justice (retd.) Jain for deposition for his triple role as CAB president, CAC member as well as advisor of Delhi Capitals.
All three were part of CAC that picked the senior national coach Ravi Shastri in July 2017, which was their last meeting.
However it has been learnt from BCCI sources that Tendulkar has no financial contract with Mumbai Indians and all three are doing voluntary service as members of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC).
"Since Ganguly was issued notice, the Ombudsman probably issued the notices to both Tendulkar and Laxman also. But I can confirm that Tendulkar doesn't take a single penny from Mumbai Indians. He is just doing voluntary service. Also in BCCI, he enever got paid for his services as CAC," a senior BCCI official privy to development told PTI.
Justice Jain in his notice (in possession of PTI) has asked both Tendulkar and Laxman to file written responses to the allegations by April 28 and has also simultaneously asked BCCI to file their response.
The complaint was filed by Sanjeev Gupta, a member of the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association (MPCA).
AS per the notice to Tendulkar and Laxman, Justice Jain wrote: "A complaint has been received by the Ethics Officer of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short "the BCCI") under Article 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the BCCI, regarding certain acts, allegedly constituting as 'conflict of interest' on your part.
"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," he further stated.
The Ombudsman stated that failure to respond will mean that no further chance to explain their points of view will be given.
"On your failure to respond to the present notice, the Ethics Officer shall be constrained to proceed in your absence, without giving any further opportunity of filing a response to the Complaint, to you.
"A copy of this Notice is also being sent to the BCCI, to enable it to file its response to the accompanying complaint, in writing on or before 28th April 2019 before the Ethics Officer," Justice Jain wrote.
Tendulkar, who celebrated his 46th birthday on Wednesday, and Laxman were not available for comments.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
