The arbitration award in favour of the banned cricketer, Ajay Jadeja, came after the Board for Control of Cricket (BCCI) in India accused the arbitrator, Justice J K Mehra, of ‘‘bias’’ and withdrew from his proceedings.The walkout took place on January 18 over an application filed by the BCCI requesting Mehra, a former judge of the Delhi High Court, to make some corrections in the transcript of Jadeja’s deposition and to recall him for further cross-examination.The BCCI’s application filed on January 16 made three important points about the proceedings challenging its five-year ban on Jadeja on the charge of having undesirable links with bookies.• The BCCI objected to the editing of the transcript of Jadeja’s cross-examination, which took place in December. It alleged that the transcript omitted questions and answers relating to his properties. Responding to a question, Jadeja deposed that he had ‘‘only one property and nothing else,’’ namely, a South Delhi flat in which he lives.The application said this answer should not have been omitted because it would have helped the BCCI press a charge of perjury. Reason: The transcript shows him answering elsewhere that his income included monthly rentals of Rs 20,000 and Rs 40,000, meaning that he had at least two more properties.• The BCCI asked him to be recalled for further cross-examination for explaining why he had denied playing cricket after the ban anywhere in India or abroad. It produced a letter from ICC saying Jadeja had played a couple of matches in California despite the ban. The BCCI sought to use this evidence to impeach his credibility.• The Board also requested the arbitrator to reconsider his decision to disallow cross-examination on the mobile phone bill records of Uttam Chand, the bookie with whom Jadeja was alleged to have had many telephone conversations. The BCCI said the denial of an opportunity to confront Jadeja with the bookie’s phone records would amount to ‘‘bias.’’This application led to the BCCI’s withdrawal from the proceedings on January 18. Minutes before the next hearing on January 20, the BCCI sent a letter putting on record the circumstances in which it was constrained to withdraw from the proceedings two days earlier. K Madhavan, the ex-CBI officer who conducted the BCCI inquiry into match-fixing, also withdrew from the arbitration saying that his cross-examination be deferred till the BCCI resumes its participation.Justice Mehra concluded the arbitration on that very day after hearing the arguments of only Jadeja’s counsel, P P Malhotra. Mehra gave his award a week later setting aside the ban. The main reason he gave for not giving more time to the BCCI was his desire to adhere to the deadline — two months, which ended in January — suggested by the Delhi HC.Jadeja’s counsel, Vineet Malhotra alleged that the BCCI’s application of January 16 was ‘‘nothing but dilatory tactics’’ because its cross examination of Jadeja over three days in December yielded nothing. The BCCI’s counsel, Radha Rangaswamy, declined to comment and said the Board was yet to take a view on it.
