The next date of hearing has been set for March 18.
Advertisement
Several recommendations like “one state-one-unit-one vote” and “no commercial breaks during live cricket matches” met with serious opposition from the Board and its affiliated units.
“Don’t try and tell us that BCCI rules are too sacrosanct to be questioned or modified by us”, the special bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice FMI Kalifulla told BCCI counsel KK Venugopal.
The counsel claimed that the International Cricket Council may object to the appointment of the CAG’s nominee as a government representative in the newly-structured body as it may constitute “government interference”, which might result in the suspension of the BCCI from the ICC.
The bench, though, said it was ready to have a debate on some of the proposals, particularly the one state one vote recommendation but also asked how a state like Manipur or Nagaland could develop cricket in those areas if they were kept out of the BCCI ambit.
The Lodha panel, in its report to the apex court, has recommended radical changes in BCCI.
When the “send it back to the panel” chorus grew louder, the bench said, We will examine whether or not to send one or two issues back to the Lodha panel for reconsideration.
BCCI also opposed the recommendation for “one state one cricket association”.
The court allowed a batch of State cricket associations and former players like Bishan Singh Bedi and Kirti Azad to intervene in the case. The BCCI said people, like former Union Minister N.K.P. Salve, lend “leadership and experience” to cricket administration. Not just this, the BCCI said “it would also adversely affect the IPL teams and the cricketers, besides minimising domestic cricket activity”.
The bench again asked Venugopal, “Why you want that the minister must be there?”
Virtually raising questions on how it managed its finances, a bench headed by Chief Justice also directed the board to submit a chart on amount it allocated to different state associations in the past five years. “At 70, they should sit at home and watch cricket on TV”, the court said. It had said, “There is no reason to disagree with the committee” which has the most “illuminated and respected members of the legal community” and granted four weeks time to the BCCI to come up with its response to the implementation of the recommendations.
The apex court-appointed Lodha Committee had on January 4 recommended sweeping reforms and an administrative shake-up at the troubled BCCI, suggesting that ministers be barred from occupying positions, a cap put on the age and tenure of the office-bearers and legalisation of betting. Thakur chuckled and said: “Despite BCCI!”
Advertisement
Justifying the presence of these bodies in the BCCI as equal members with a vote, Venugopal gave historical justification of these associations’ presence in the BCCI since its beginning on account of them representing the pre-Independence princely states.
