Why Johri had to leave BCCI

New Delhi, July 10

Rahul Johri, the CEO of the Indian cricket board (BCCI), has departed the board after his resignation was accepted by the management.

Johri had originally sent in his resignation in December last year but had been asked to continue in office. But now, a senior BCCI official said that the resignation had been finally accepted. “Rahul Johri’s resignation has been accepted. He was earlier given an extension till April 30, but this time it has been accepted,” a senior BCCI official said.

It has not been officially clarified why his resignation was accepted now. However, there is speculation that it was due to suspicion Johri was behind the leak of certain confidential financial information regarding the BCCI in the public domain.

“He has been informed of the decision by email. He had resigned earlier and was asked to continue in the interim,” a BCCI official said told a news agency. “However the leak of confidential financial information of a bid that was being prepared accelerated the decision. Highest levels of confidentiality are expected when any bid takes place in an organisation.”

It is understood that the circulation of two specific mails in the media — Cricket Australia head Earl Eddings’ mail to ICC regarding the World T20 and one by CAG representative Alka Rehani Bhardwaj — brought about his downfall.

Johri, who joined the BCCI in 2016, had earlier put in his papers after the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) had made way for the Sourav Ganguly-led set-up to run the world’s richest cricket board. However, Johri was asked to continue till the end of his contract, which was due to expire in 2021.

However, once the BCCI got back its administration, Johri was increasingly marginalised with his domain of work, including matters related to ICC, being handled by secretary Jay Shah.

Johri’s position had become shaky after two sexual harassment complaints had been made against him in 2018. However, he was given a contentious clean chit by an inquiry panel, with one of the three members recommending that he needed to go through gender sensitisation counselling. The CoA was unable to come to an agreement about what action should be taken against him. — TNS, Agencies