Indian Cricket Legend Rahul Dravid Cleared In The Conflict Of Interest Case

File Picture

In a big relief for Indian cricket legend Rahul Dravid, BCCI ethics officer D K Jain, has dismissed the conflict of interest complaint against him, saying it was ‘bereft of any merit’ reported PTI.

“I have rejected the complaint. Rahul Dravid doesn’t have conflict of interest,” Jain said after issuing the order.

“I am convinced that on facts at hands, a case of conflict of interest as enshrined is the Rules is not made out. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed being bereft of any merit,” read Thursday’s order which is in possession of PTI.

MPCA life member Sanjiv Gupta had filed a complaint against Dravid, alleging conflict of interest in his current role as National Cricket Academy (NCA) Head and being an India Cements employee.

Jain had conducted a second round of hearing on Tuesday when Dravid was represented by his lawyer.

The 46-year-old former India captain had earlier explained his case in a personal hearing held in Mumbai on September 26.

Dravid is currently the NCA Director in Bengaluru besides being a vice-president in the India Cements group, which owns the IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings.

He was also the head coach of the India ‘A’ and Under-19 teams before being handed the NCA role, which includes monitoring the progress of these two sides as well.

In his earlier submission, Dravid had defended himself saying he has taken leave of absence from India Cements and he has nothing to do with the Chennai Super Kings.

As per Rule 38 (4) of BCCI constitution, no individual can hold more than one post at the same time.

However, in Dravid’s case the ethics officer has interpreted the rule a bit differently while in the order passed in June, Jain had found Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman conflicted for holding multiple posts.

“To put it differently, for examining an instance of ‘conflict of interest’, mere holding of posts by an individual associated with the BCCI, as identified in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 38 of the Rules, may not per-se be sufficient for arriving at the conclusion of existence of ‘conflict of interest’.

“But whether holding of such post(s) gives rise to “conflict of interest” or not must also be tested on the anvil of reasonable apprehensions of, or actual favoritism, lack of objectivity, bias, benefits, etc., as contemplated in the definition of “conflict of interest” in Rulel(A)(g) of the Rules,” read the order.