Sourav Ganguly's chances of returning to the Indian team for the triseries in Sri Lanka quickly receded on Friday with the one-man ICC Disputes Resolution Committee (DRC) setting a July 22 date for final arguments in the BCCI dispute over the process of hearing the Indian captain's appeal against a six-match ODI ban.
South Africa Constitutional Court Judge, Justice Albie Sachs, of the DRC has provided the ICC and the BCCI until July 20 to supply written submissions of their case and further two days to file their replies.
- Will Ganguly regain lost glory?
Justice Sachs, an anti-aparthied hero who fought the racist South African government of the past alongwith Nelson Mandela, would then consider all the information and determine the dispute.
The Indian team to play in Sri Lanka, against the hosts and the West Indies, was to be picked on July 18.
Sachs said he was aware of the gravity of the situation but has not yet fixed a date for his verdict.
"I realise that, it's obvious. But I have not committed to any date, all I can say is I am a fast worker," Sachs told reporters via a telephone hook-up.
Sachs said the BCCI dispute was "a question of legality of the process" adopted to hear Ganguly's appeal and as such it needed his "serious attention".
The South African, in his directions to the two parties, has asked them to give their submission on the points raised by the BCCI.
Two questions seemingly at the heart of the dispute were (i) how the ICC's Code of Conduct fixed the culpability of a captain and the factors by which the Level 2 and 3 offences were determined and (ii) if it was possible to reconcile the two approaches adopted by Tim Castle and Michael Beloff.
It may be recalled that Castle allowed an oral hearing by Ganguly when the latter appealed against a one-match ban by Match Referee Clive Lloyd for India's slow over rate in the Platinum Jubilee one-dayer against Pakistan in November 2004.
Beloff, also the chairman of the Code of Conduct Commission, referred to only arguments presented by text after the April six-match ban by Match Referee Chris Broad.
While Castle exonerated Ganguly, Beloff upheld Broad's decision.
In fact, the finality of Appeals Commissioner's verdict was another matter raised by the BCCI.
| |||||||||||
"It is a question of legality of the process in terms of relevant rules. If it is not in the rules (to ban a captain for his team's slow over rate), penalties in the past might have to be reconsidered.
"It depends on the reason for my decision. If it (the reason) is substantial, it will have an effect. But I can't go into that really at this stage," he said.
Sachs discouraged BCCI's efforts, if there was any, to seek a personal hearing with him.
"It would be expensive and time consuming if BCCI lawyers were to come and meet me. Written submissions are the efficient way to go about it," he said.
Asked what happens if his decision were to favour Ganguly and came after the player had served out the ban, Sachs said "that is a question for the BCCI and the ICC".
He reiterated that the dispute in front of him was a legal question and did not concern with facts.
"There are a number of complicated issues involved, and they require serious attention ... If I sound like a lawyer, that is because I am very much one," he said.
Sachs, however, sugar-coated his bitter pill for Ganguly.
"I would like to meet Ganguly socially one day, maybe after a good match. But not during the process.
"I have been to Kolkata, the City of Joy. I have read Rabindranath Tagore and seen many of Satyajit Ray's films. But this is not the moment for that.
"I am now dealing with him in capacity as a lawyer, not as a friend."
