After much prodding, IPL COO Sundar Raman steps down

On October 4, 2015, when he became the president, Manohar had asked for “two months” to put the house in order and Raman is the first person to take the hit. It’s learnt that Manohar had told Raman that he would need to resign on his own, or face the possibility of being asked to resign at the BCCI’s annual general meeting on November 9.

[related-post]

Even before he took over, Manohar had fired a potshot at Raman, making his continuity in the role almost untenable. “Raman should have gone immediately after the Mudgal Committee report found him prima facie guilty of wrongdoings,” Manohar had said in July. “He ought to have stepped down immediately at that time. Now, to restore the faith of people in IPL and the game, Raman needs to go.”

Things had come to a boil ever since Raman was named as “Individual 12” in the findings of the committee headed by Justice Mukul Mudgal. The report had alleged that Raman knew about the betting activities of Gurunath Meiyappan, Srinivasan’s son-in-law who was also the owner of Chennai Super Kings, and Raj Kundra, the erstwhile part-owner of Rajasthan Royals, but had not conveyed it to anyone because he had been advised by the ICC’s anti-corruption unit that the information was not actionable.

More importantly, the report also stated that Raman knew “a contact of a bookie and contacted him eight times in one season”, but claimed to be “unaware of his connection with betting activities”.

Later, Raman filed an affidavit in Supreme Court stating that, “the person concerned was also a celeb, a movie actor and also a TV star. As IPL COO, I had to deal with celebrities as part of my job. Celebs often call for tickets and invites to events — such bonafide interaction can’t be basis of any misdemeanour on my part… The Mudgal committee report doesn’t specifically say that I had knowledge that the person concerned was the contact of a bookie.”

Reacting to Raman’s resignation, Mudgal said, “He should have maybe resigned earlier, but this was the right thing to do”. The events have transpired before the Lodha Committee tables its report to the Supreme court by December.

While passing its order last July, the Lodha Commitee said that it “shall also examine the role of Mr. Sundar Raman with or without further investigation, into his activities, and if found guilty, impose a suitable punishment upon him on behalf of BCCI.”

The November 9 AGM in Mumbai is also likely to see other upheavals within the board. A consensus among board members, in favour of new BCCI president Shashank Manohar taking over as ICC chief, replacing Srinivasan, is expected to be reached. Also, a decision on scrapping the commentary contracts, which made it mandatory for the official broadcaster to hire Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri and L Sivaramakrishnan, is also likely to be taken up at the Mumbai meeting.

What the Mudgal report had to say…

* Justice Mukul Mudgal committee stated in its report that Sundar Raman had contacted a bookie [read Vindoo Dara Singh] eight times in one season of IPL. Raman “admitted” that he knew a contact of the bookie but claimed that to be “unaware of his connection with betting activities”, the report said.
n Mudgal report also said that Raman, identified as “Individual 12”, was aware of involvement of Raj Kundra, part-owner in Rajasthan Royals in the past, and Gurunath Meiyappan, son-in-law of N Srnivasan, in betting activities in the IPL.

*  Mudgal report said: “This individual also accepted that he had received information about individual 1 and individual 11 [Gurunath and Kundra, respectively] taking part in betting activities but was informed by the ICC-ACSU (International Cricket Council-Anti Corruption and Security Unit) chief that this was not actionable information. This individual also accepted that this information was not conveyed to any other individual.”