Yesterday, the electoral college of the Bridge Federation of India met and voted to decide its Executive Committee for the next two years.
While most of the office bearers appear to have been elected in what was a clean sweep led by a 'panel' of like minded people, there appears to have been a huge controversy about the election of the President.
Allegations and counter allegations have been flowing hot and frequent on a WhatsApp group with people levying personal allegations against the 'president' elect and the officers of the BFI and generally losing their cool about things.
BridgeFromHome attempts to put the matter in perspective for all to read and reach their own conclusions. But let us proceed step by step.
The Panels
There were effectively two panels contesting the elections as follows
Panel 1
President Prasad Keni
Vice President Anand Samant Keshav Prasad Mathur
Secretary Debasish Ray
Jt. Secretary D.V.Ravi Hemant Pandey
Treasurer Satheesh Kumar
EC Member
Monica Jajoo
Bindiya Naidu
Rupa Bakeri
Prakash Gupta
M.B.V.Subramanyam
Panel 2
President Subodh Maskara
Vice President Suvendu Patnaik
Secretary Ranjan Bhattacharya
Jt. Secretary Bindiya Naidu
Treasurer Puja Batra
This panel was apparently willing to accept anybody else who joined the Executive Committee
The Outcome
Once all votes had come in, it appears (we have no official notification) that all the members from Panel 1 above had been elected barring the President.
The Controversy
For the post of President, Prasad Keni had polled 23 votes while Subodh Maskara had polled 12. However, the returning officer referred to the provisions mentioned in Annexure XI of the National Sports Development Code 2011, which, inter alia, states that a person seeking re election to the same post should win with 2/3 rds majority of the college present and voting.
We were also shown a letter from the Chandigarh Bridge Association requesting a change in its nominated representatives. The said letter can be viewed by clicking here. This letter apparently was received on the 4th of January by the BFI and accepted by the President of the BFI.
Had the letter not been accepted, Prasad would have arguably obtained 24 votes out of 34, thus obtaining the necessary majority.
Our Take on the Controversy
At the outset, we would like to state that we believe that both Prasad Keni and Subodh Maskara are eminently successful businessmen who don't need the Presidency of the BFI to enhance their reputation. We have heard all sorts of allegations hurled at both of them, some of them publicly, some of them not so publicly about efforts to 'purchase votes' etc. Call it naivette if you will, but we simply don't believe that either of them would stoop to any such levels merely to get elected.
Having got that out of the way, let us now examine the contentions above.
Is two thirds majority mandatory?
For those wanting to read the provision, you can read the same on Pages 63 / 64 of the code which is available here
Since 23 votes out of 35 does not constitute a 2/3rds majority, the returning officer had merely followed the process.
There has been a lot of clamor about a cooling off period and whether the cooling off period had passed or not. Further there was a hue and cry about the candidates not having been informed of the requirement
My personal opinion, after reading the document, is
- The cooling off period had passed.
- Notwithstanding the above, since he was seeking election to the post of president for a second time, Prasad Keni did require to win the election with a 2/3rds majority. And he will require to do so any time he stands as long as the elections are being conducted under this edition of the Sports Code.
- Apropos not having been informed of the requirement, the least that a candidate may do is to read the code under which the elections are being contested. This is akin to a player saying he had not read the Special Conditions of Contest which are published in any major event.
In an aside, the election of Mr. C. M. Kulkarni to the post of Secretary BFI in 2022 may well have been in violation of this very clause. It is important not to forget that this mid term election, so to speak, was being held because the previous elections were not in conformance with the above sports code.
One person had asked, not unreasonably, that if two candidates were seeking re election to a post and neither managed to obtain the requisite 2/3rd majority, what would have happened. We will leave this question to a returning officer if and when such returning office is required to rule on the same.
Acceptance of the letter of Chandigarh Bridge association.
This letter apparently was received on the 4th of January by the BFI and accepted by the President in accordance with Clause 4(4) of the Model Election Guidelines (Annexure 37) of the sports code. Once again, the link to the sports code is available here. The specific reference is available on page 167 of the document.
Whether the BFI President should have accepted the letter or not is, according to the code, at his discretion. To impute ulterior motives to the actions of the outgoing President, or indeed to anybody, is not something this author does without any evidence.
Conclusion
It is indeed heartbreaking to lose an election after securing 23 out of 36 votes. However, after examining the documents independently of members of either panel, this author has come to the conclusion that the returning officer has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Sports Code.
We understand that the returning officer is a lawyer of repute and accuse the officer of bias (either independent, or induced), seems to be unreasonable.
If indeed, the Panel and Prasad wishes to get this overturned, they would need to request a review of this provision. It needs to be borne in mind that this proviso was put into the code after some thought by the powers that be.
We hope the newly elected Committee will work together for the development of Indian Bridge in a much better manner that the outgoing Committee did (no matter how well it did).
It is more or less certain that people will have different views from mine. My only take is that they are entitled to their views.
Please do share your comments in the space below.
Disclaimer : All opinions are entirely those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the BridgeFromHome Team.
The law may be an ass, but the law is the law and must be respected
I wonder if it is possible to have a record of all BFI office bearers on the BFI website, so that such a confusion may not arise in the future.
Well said sukrit. With the state of bridge now, we need everybody working together to take this forward.
Let’s hope the 2 teams get together and work to make this game better and stronger in India.
well written sukrit. But I differ from the interpretation of the sports code. ultimately the language is English can be interpreted either way to anyone’s benefit. But for any law juris prudence is to be looked into. The basic intension of the law makers. here two word provided and consecutive are to be given special stress and importance. the underlying intent is very important. Prasad Kenny in my mind is the clear winner. no ambiguity.
Dear Souren,
Thanks for writing in.
As you pointed out, it is a matter of interpretation of the sports code.
It should be a simple matter for the parties concerned to write to the SAI and have the interpretation confirmed.
It is really sad to see so many people calling each other names and accusing them of horrible deeds for that reason.
HI. Your conclusion there is an errata that needs to be corrected to 23 out of 35 votes and not out of 36 votes.
I would like to draw attention to the same page 64 you have quoted and the last sentence just above the para Explanation 1.
“The office would thereafter be filled by election under the normal procedure from amongst candidates other than the office bearers seeking re-election”
The above sentence very clearly clarifies what is re-election and who needs 2/3rd majority. “Who is an office bearer – a person who is in office currently while contesting in elections and ceartainly not who was an office bearer 5 years ago.
Dear Satheesh,
The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the clause.
The RO interpreted it as Prasad Keni needing 2/3rds majority. I too interpreted it the same way.
I understand that the RO was nudged by the outgoing BFI president in that direction. While the said individual is expected to stay truly neutral in an election to determine his successor, his action, while not exactly unbiased, was not ‘untrue’.
Whether it was correct or not, it brought the clause to the notice of the RO. One presumes that the RO did read the clause and came to his own conclusion.
The point is that, had he interpreted it the other way, Subodh Maskara would have knocked on the doors of the SAI for clarification.
So we would have had the controversy anyway.
At any rate, I hope Prasad Keni also approaches the SAI and gets the issue sorted out, once and for all.