A day after former Indian batsman VVS Laxman deposed before BCCI Ethics Officer and former Supreme Court Justice DK Jain in New Delhi, the Sunrisers Hyderabad mentor stated that the ‘Conflict of Interest’ case against him should be decided on matter already submitted as well as his written submissions on Tuesday.
Laxman, who came with his advocate P. Sri Ram, gave his deposition to Jain after former India captain Sachin Tendulkar also appeared in person along with his counsel Amit Sibal. Apart from the two former cricketers, BCCI was represented by CEO Rahul Johri and advocate Indranil Deshmukh during the deposition.
Jain stated in the report of Tuesday’s hearing posted on the BCCI website, “VVS Laxman has handed over his written submissions and states that the matter be decided based on the material already on record and the written submissions filed today and that he would not need any further hearing in the matter.”
“It is stated by Sanjeev Gupta and the Ld. Counsel (Deshmukh) appearing on behalf of the BCCI that no further arguments are required to be made in the matter and the request made on behalf of Laxman that the matter be decided on the basis of material already on record and Written Submissions filed today, be accepted,” the report added.
However, Jain who is also the BCCI Ombudsman, stated that Gupta has a week to respond to submissions given by Laxman.
“Accordingly, orders are reserved in the present proceedings. However, Mr. Sanjeev Gupta and the BCCI shall be at liberty to file any further submissions in response to the written submissions filed today, on behalf of VVS Laxman, within 7 days from today,” Jain said in the report.
Gupta, who is a life member of Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association (MPCA), had raised the issue of Laxman and Tendulkar’s ‘Conflict of Interest’ due to their position on BCCI’s Cricket Advisory Committee as well as their roles with Sunrisers Hyderabad and Mumbai Indians respectively.
In his reply to Jain submitted earlier, Laxman wrote, “On December 7, 2018, we had written to the the Committee of Administrators requesting them to clarify the scope of our role and responsibilities. To this date, there has been no reply. Since no tenure had been mentioned in the letter of intent issued in 2015, it was only reasonable to expect some communication on whether the CAC was still in existence. Unfortunately that hasn’t been forthcoming.”
“It is my respectful submission that when I am barely required to discharge any duties as a member of the CAC, which I wasn’t even sure existed due to the lack of communication until I received this notice, questions of any conflict of interest doesn’t arise,” Laxman’s reply added.
However, Tendulkar still needs to appear for a second hearing on May 20 which will be attended by his counsel Sibal.