Mumbai, The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on Monday named a panel comprising Sourav Ganguly, Rajeev Shukla, Anurag Thakur and Anirudh Chaudhry to study the Lodha Committee verdict and prepare the road map for the future of the Indian Premier League (IPL).
The four, who are all part of the IPL Governing Council (GC), will be assisted by BCCI legal adviser U.N. Banerjee.
The group will share its recommendations with the GC within six weeks after consulting all the key stakeholders.
The Lodha Committee on July 14 had suspended IPL franchises Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals for two years while banning respective team officials Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra from any cricketing activity for life.
An anonymous letter has triggered a war words between Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) ombudsman Ushanath Banerjee and state board President Sourav Ganguly over alleged conflict of interest of selectors Palash Nandy and Madan Ghosh.
Banerjee had received an anonymous letter a few days back which pointed out that senior selection panel chief Nandy was associated with a cricket coaching camp.
Further, it alleged that Ghosh, who moved from the senior to junior selection recently was both associated with a coaching camp and had also represented White Border Club in CAB meetings previously.
“The CAB had done nothing about it for a long time. For the pair, it was business as usual till the letter came and stirred a hornet’s nest,” a source close to the development said.
Ganguly shot off a letter, a copy of which was circulated to the media, asking Banerjee not to pay heed to such cases since the complainant did not reveal his or her identity.
“The Cricket Association of Bengal will not entertain any such anonymous communication and as such you being an important part of the organisation should follow the same. I feel you are not entitled to give any reply,” Ganguly wrote.
Banerjee hit back within hours using strong language. The four-page rejoinder was also circulated to the media.
Banerjee rejected the former India captain’s diktat, saying: “it is widely acknowledged that in the interest of maintaining transparency, organisations world over take cognizance of anonymous information.”
To butress his point, he cited in the letter examples of cases where the judiciary has acted on the basis of anonymous information.
“You have been incorrectly advised by persons without any homework being done and based on mere knowledge in the subject matter in issue,” Banerjee wrote to Ganguly.
“I humbly request you to kindly point out the said policy of CAB, as referred in your letter, and the date when so adopted,” the reply read.