Rahul Johri case: Testimony sans video/audio recording surprises deponents

The ongoing independent investigation to probe allegations of sexual harassment against BCCI CEO Rahul Johri seems to be getting intriguing by the day. It has now come to the fore that the three-member independent panel — Justice (Retd) Rakesh Sharma, Barkha Singh and Veena Gowda — constituted by the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) has not video/audio recorded any of the statements of the deponents and the testimony has only been written down. This has created a sense of discomfort among the deponents, a few of whom are also aggrieved parties in the matter.

Speaking to Hindustan Times, one of the deponents said that it did come as a surprise when it came to the fore that there was no video or audio recording of the statements during the deposition. This after the CoA has made it clear that even meetings of the various BCCI committees be audio recorded for future reference.

“Lack of independently verifiable deposition recorded by the independent committee when Johri deposed before them has caused serious prejudice to the case. Given the kind of stories that have appeared about a ‘most influential card’ being used, the absence of video recording of Johri’s deposition has eroded the faith of a victim who had deposed before the committee. The committee needs to realise that in coming out and deposing, the victim has taken a serious risk and a person in Johri’s position has the capability to destroy her career completely.

ALSO READ: Rahul Johri gives his version to probe panel in sexual harassment case

“With the kind of influence that is reported to be at play, why would someone not video record the deposition? What about the CoA? When they insist that every meeting of a BCCI committee is audio recorded, why have they not passed such a direction in this case? The one who constituted this committee has something that he wishes to hide? I am having second thoughts about my earlier impression about them,” the deponent said.

Another deponent echoed the sentiments and said: “Are you trying to tell me that while the BCCI can pay for an independent probe, they cannot pay for video/audio recording? It did come as a surprise. Had there been recordings available, there would have been no questions of error in transcribing what was spoken in the room.”

The investigation committee had earlier laid down the rules for anyone wishing to depose in front of the committee. They had made it clear that anyone wishing to depose must first establish their own position and how they are connected in the matter before the panel decides whether the person gets an opportunity to meet the panel. With board officials criticizing the move, seen as a clear attempt to scare away complainants, the panel was forced to change their stance.