Receive no monetary benefit from Mumbai Indians: Sachin Tendulkar's letter to Ombudsman
New Delhi: Legendary Sachin Tendulkar has categorically refuted all allegations of Conflict of Interest levelled against him as he claimed to have neither "received any compensation" nor of holding any decision making role in the IPL franchise Mumbai Indians.
Tendulkar on Sunday filed a 14-point written response to a notice sent by Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer Justice (Retd) DK Jain. It was with regards to a Conflict of Interest complaint filed by the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association (MPCA) member Sanjeev Gupta.
As per the complainant, Tendulkar and Laxman are allegedly performing dual roles of a "support staff" of their respective IPL franchises Mumbai Indians (MI) and Sunrisers Hyderabad and members of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC).
"At the outset, the Noticee (Tendulkar) denies the contents of the Complaint in totality (except the statements specifically admitted herein). No part of the Complaint should be deemed to be admitted by the Noticee for lack of specific denials," Tendulkar wrote in his response which is in possession of PTI.
Since Gupta's complaints harped specifically on Tendulkar's role in the MI, the iconic cricketer in his response have made a full disclosure of his role in the franchise.
"The Noticee (Tendulkar) has received no pecuniary benefit/ compensation from the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise in his capacity as the Mumbai Indians 'ICON' since his retirement, and is certainly not employed with the Franchise in any capacity.
"He does not occupy any position, nor has he taken any decision (including selection of team players) which could qualify as being in governance or management of the Franchise. Accordingly, there is no conflict of interest, either under the BCCI Rules or otherwise," world's leading run-getter further explained.
As far as his role in the Cricket Advisory Committee is concerned, Tendulkar mentioned that he was appointed as a member of the BCCI committee in 2015, which was years after his involvement with the MI.
"The Noticee was appointed to the panel of the Cricket Advisory Committee ("CAC") in the year 2015. The Hon'ble Ethics Officer will appreciate that the Noticee was named as the 'ICON' for Mumbai Indians much prior to his empanelment with the CAC which fact has always been in the public domain.
"Accordingly, the BCCI aware of the Noticee's association with the Mumbai Indians Franchise at the time of his appointment to the CAC."
Tendulkar, in his disclosure, further makes it clear that the role of an icon -- the one he is performing right now in the IPL franchise team -- in no way is a position either in the management or the governance of the franchise.
"The Complaint wrongly assumes that the Noticee's association with the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise ( Franchise ) is in the capacity of "governance", "management" or "employment" thereby attracting a conflict under Rule 38 (4).
"His role is limited to providing guidance to the Franchise team by sharing his insights, learnings and working closely with the younger members in the team to help them realise their true potential."
On his reply to Gupta's question of him sitting in the team's 'dugout' -- place specified for players and support staff only, he termed the allegation as "absurd".
"A mentor cannot be qualified as "management" of the Franchise. If the Complainant's absurd logic were to be applied, a physiotherapist, trainer or a masseur would also be qualified as "management" of the Franchise," Tendulkar responded, making it clear that he is answerable to none of the support staff.
"It is also pertinent to note that the Mumbai Indians team has a head coach, who works side by side with coaches for specific disciplines such as bowling, batting etc. in ultimate coordination with the Director of Cricket Operations none of whom the Noticee is answerable to or vice versa since his role is limited to that of providing guidance and motivation to the team."
Tendulkar also made it clear that in case Ombudsman wants to "continue proceedings", he would "request for a personal hearing along with his legal representatives.
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.
