‘CoA Is Not Very Open or Transparent’: Diana Edulji

Diana Edulji said that there should be a uniform rule that COA follows to hold elections.

Diana Edulji, a member of the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA), has criticised the panel for not giving voting rights to three government organisations – Railways, Services, and the Association of Universities.

In an interview to The Indian Express, Diana has expressed her disappointment. She said that COA as an organisation is not very open and transparent and are often seen as favouring certain states over others.

When asked about her views on the eight units that have been disqualified from voting, she said, “The CoA were disqualifying associations for non-compliance of the constitution. We received many complaints against Baroda, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh that they have violated qualification norms.”

“If you are non-compliant and have not registered the constitution as per the requirements, CoA is justified in taking action,” she added.

“But at the same time, what have you (CoA) done when some states promised to follow the new constitution but when they held elections, they allowed disqualified people to participate.”

Diana Edulji

She also said that there should be a uniform rule that COA follows to hold elections.

“That is what I am saying: why different rules? The same yardstick should be used for everybody. You can’t have different yardsticks for different states,” she told The Indian Express.

She said that it is the duty of Indian Cricketers Association to form and conduct election of players in the state associations.

“Tell me, where is the constitution of these three government organisations? There is no constitution because it’s a different body completely.”

Diana Edulji

“They stopped them from playing Ranji Trophy, stopped giving jobs. The Supreme Court bought them from associate members to voting members and now we have done the opposite,” she added.

She also shed light on Rahul Dravid’s conflict of interest issue.

“I think he was misguided by the management. I made it very clear that whosoever comes in should be cleared by the ethics officer. You can give a timeline to the ethics officer in case of emergency,” she said.

Lastly, when asked whether these moves are done with some ulterior motive or not, she signed off saying “ I don’t know, the optics are going wrong. The perception of people is going wrong. Perception is very important.”