Aditi Phadnis: Batting for the 'little people'

BACKSTAGE

For the usually unflappable Jagmohan Dalmiya, it was a bolt from the blue. As he walked into the hall to attend the annual general meeting (AGM) of the Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) earlier this week, he was told he couldn't go in because of a court stay.

It took nearly seven hours for the AGM to start and even then, all it could do was conduct an election. The crucial issue of whether it could confirm him as Patron-in-Chief of the BCCI is still pending a decision.

Given the might and the reach of the BCCI, it must have been humbling to have a tiny sports club, the Chennai-based Bharathi Cricket Club, get an injunction on the powers of this behemoth.

But in a David versus Goliath kind of a case, the Bharathi Cricket Club has managed to prevent, at least temporarily, Dalmiya from becoming the Patron-in-Chief of the BCCI.

The woman who fought the Bharathi Cricket Club case is not terribly famous but is known to bat for the small man. Her name is Nalini Chidambaram.

Bharathi Cricket Club is a members' member and is affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association. In the complex world of cricket politics dominated by region, power and money, the Bharathi Cricket Club figures nowhere "" until Tuesday, September 28 when BCCI AGM had to postpone its decision on the issue of Patron-in-Chief.

As the lawyer for the Bharathi Cricket Club, Nalini Chidambaram's contention in court in the ongoing case is that Dalmiya's three-year term as President of the BCCI expired with the AGM.

He wanted to retain control of the BCCI and because he was not allowed any more terms as President, he sought backdoor entry. This was done through a resolution passed by the previous board on September 12 appointing him Patron-in-Chief, a post that has not existed before in BCCI.

The appellation of Patron-in-Chief was so tailored as to enable him to represent the BCCI board at the International Cricket Council (ICC), the petition said. No one could expect to continue to control an organisation in perpetuity. So Dalmiya's appointment would be violative of the democratic character of the BCCI.

The BCCI's lawyers argued that Bharathi Cricket Club had no locus standi because it was not a member of the BCCI. That's where the case stands at this moment. This is not the only case Chidambaram has fought on behalf of the little people.

In 2003, when the state government dismissed two lakh government employees she fought and won in the Supreme Court and the government was forced to reinstate them.

She also fought and won on behalf of dismissed road gang mazdoors and is currently fighting a case on behalf of 850 Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board workers who have been dismissed because officers argue that they should remain in their jobs but the workers should be sacked because the Board is incurring losses.

Her argument is that through innovative management practices and new products, the Board can be turned around. Chidambaram's father, P S Kailasam was the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and was elevated to a judge in the Supreme Court.

She began practising in 1968. She fought against her husband, lawyer and Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram in court in an income tax matter just once, 20 years ago. She argued for the government. She lost.

With the successful hobbling of Dalmiya's efforts to make himself Patron-in-Chief, Chidambaram has demonstrated that India's judicial system can be made to work for the unprivileged as well.

Since then a host of cases have been filed in high courts all over India on the same issue. Bharati Cricket Club, however, was the first. And they have Chidambaram to thank.