Churchill Bros ask AIFF ethics panel to examine Chaubey’s ‘conflict of interest’

Panaji: Churchill Brothers FC have asked All India Football Federation’s ethics and dispute resolution committee to examine a potential conflict of interest concerning its president Kalyan Chaubey and determine whether his candidature “for the office of AIFF President complies with conflict of interest provisions and governance principles.”
According to last week’s complaint by the club’s general manager, Aditya Barros Pereira, Chaubey’s wife, Sohini Mitra, serves as the director of Mohun Bagan Football Club (India) Pvt Ltd, as per “publicly available records.”
Churchill said Sohini is also associated with executive committee of Mohun Bagan Athletic Club, “thereby exercising a governance role within the club structure.”
As per Article 73.3 of the AIFF Constitution, every person after taking over their positions should disclose to the ethics and disputes resolution committee in writing any existing or potential event that may be deemed to cause a conflict of interest and the same should be uploaded on the AIFF website.
“The non-disclosure of Chaubey’s relationship with the Director of Mohun Bagan Football Club (India) Private Limited raises concerns on his integrity and his capacity to undertake objective decisions for the interest of the federation,” the club said in the complaint, flagging violations of Article 19 and Article 19(A) of the AIFF Code of Ethics, 2017.
Churchill said a potential instance of “favouritism or lenient treatment” due to the involvement of Chaubey was the recent reduction of sanction imposed on Mohun Bagan, following a letter for review by the club. The AIFF disciplinary committee had initially imposed a full stadium closure along with a fine for the March 6 clash against Odisha FC but following a review petition, the decision was modified from a full closure to a partial one.
“These events are strange as judicial bodies in AIFF have not modified/taken back decisions that were directed to the parties except in cases of directions made by domestic and international courts. As a matter of settled legal principle, review jurisdiction is narrowly confined and is generally maintainable only in exceptional circumstances, such as the discovery of a new and important fact or evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other similarly limited grounds. No such circumstance appears, on the face of the record, to have existed in the present matter,” said Churchill.
The club said “when the spouse of the (AIFF) president occupies a governance position within a club that participates in the national football structure, there arises a real and reasonable concern regarding the possibility of preferential treatment, access to confidential information, the exercise of undue influence, and a perception of compromised impartiality in regulatory or commercial matters affecting football clubs.”
In its appeal, Churchill have asked the independent ethics panel to examine the conflict-of-interest implications arising from the directorship and governance role of Chaubey’s wife, determine whether his candidature for the office of AIFF president complies with the constitution’s provisions, and “direct appropriate disclosures, recusals, or other remedial measures as deemed necessary.”
Churchill’s recent complaints saw the AIFF ethics and dispute resolution committee left with just two members, prompting a pause into their battle against Inter Kashi.
Committee chairperson RK Pachnanda first recused himself on account of his earlier role of investigator as AIFF’s integrity officer and Sudarshan Kumar Agarwal resigned after the club brough to the fore his previous role as counsel for AIFF president Chaubey and flagged a direct conflict of interest.
Churchill, who are not part of either the Indian Super League (ISL) or Indian Football League (IFL) this season, have been up in arms against the AIFF due to last season’s I-League title race, where they were first declared champions. However, the title was later awarded to Inter Kashi, who won two appeals in the Court of Arbitration for sport (CAS).