Those banned have a solid case, say legal experts
Onkar Singh
Legal luminary Ram Jethmalani Wednesday denied being hired
by former India captain Mohammad Azharuddin to defend him in court against the Board of Control for Cricket in India's decision to ban him from the game for life.
"There is no truth it. All that I am aware is that he had hired Mahesh Jethmalani
for consultation but even that was not in the match-fixing case," the former Union law and justice minister told rediff.com.
When asked if any of the banned players had contacted him, Jethmalani said he had stopped taking fresh cases.
"I cannot tell you what can I do if someone comes to me without knowing what the case is all
about," he said.
However, another leading advocate Shanti Bhushan believes that the five, who have been
banned from cricket for five years to life, have a solid case.
"I feel that the players who have been banned could approach the courts for redressal. But they should do so after exhausting all other the forums to seek justice. Prima facie (if
one goes through the CBI report and the report
prepared by K Madhavan) they have a case against them.
"But that should not prevent them from going to the court of law and seek justice," Bhushan said.
K K Venugopal, who is defending the Board of Control for Cricket in India in the Delhi High Court, however, refused to comment, as he felt it would be unethical on his part to give a statement either for or against the players.
Rahul Mehra, who has moved a special leave petition in the Delhi High Court against the BCCI and the Delhi and District Cricket Association, confirmed that two of the banned players had got in touch with him.
"Of course, the players can go to the court and seek remedial action. But they have to first approach the BCCI and put forward their point of view to review the ban order passed on by board president A C Muthiah on behalf of the board.
"But I doubt that anything would come out of it as Muthiah has already made it clear that the decision of the disciplinary committee would be binding on the board as per the new Code of Conduct evolved by the BCCI in October this year," he said.
He agreed with Ajay Jadeja's contention that 'the board cannot frame the Code of Conduct today and apply it with retrospective effect'. "He has a point, and on this point alone the order of the board can be challenged," he added.
He, however, refused to give the name of the two players who have been in touch with him.
Advocate for Ajay Jadeja, Vineet Malhotra, claimed that the five-year ban on his client virtually amounted to imposing a life ban on him, as after five years he would not get a place in the Indian cricket team.
"Even a one-year ban would have amounted to a life ban. We have still not made up our minds whether we should move the court right away or little later. I can tell you that Ajay Jadeja would move all forums, wherever possible, to get justice. My client has not indulged in any undesirable activity; he has not fixed matches; he has not mixed up with the bookies as made out by the CBI and Madhavan," he argued.
He flashed a 20-page statement of his client and two pages of telephone records to prove that Jadeja was not at all guilty and said he was framed to defame him.
Delhi High Court advocate Siddarth Luthra said the players could either file a criminal complaint in the court or a civil petition and seek damages from the board.
"In a civil case it would take years to reach the conclusion but in a criminal writ petition the matter could be heard and decided within two-and-a-half years. Prabhakar has a strong case and he should move the court," he opined.
Mail Cricket Editor
