Awaiting Supreme Court Verdict, BCCI Defers SGM to April 18

Awaiting the Supreme Court verdict on eligibility for attending ICC meetings, the BCCI on Monday decided to defer its Special General Meeting from April 12 to April 18. The apex court has fixed April 17 as the date for its next hearing on Committee of Administrators' plea on eligibility to represent India at ICC meetings. Acting BCCI president CK Khanna on Monday informed the state associations that the meeting, which was scheduled for Wednesday, April 12, has been deferred as they have to wait till the Supreme Court passes a verdict in this regard.

The COA moved court after it became clear that disqualified former BCCI president N Srinivasan, with the help of his loyalists, attempted to take the ICC route to stay relevant in Indian cricket administration.

That the old guard of BCCI is not ready to give up without a fight was evident as Srinivasan, Niranjan Shah, G Gangaraju, TC Matthew -- all ineligible under Lodha Committee reforms -- attended the SGM last Sunday that was adjourned awaiting a court order.

In fact, Srinivasan coterie would be worried after a SC bench today made it clear that they would not want any violation of orders.

"The man who is disqualified stands disqualified," the bench said, adding, "there is a cap of 70 years given by this court. It is difficult to comprehend that a man who is not eligible goes to ICC to represent the BCCI. We do not want violation of our orders."

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal opposed the view saying that he was willing to argue the issue as the judgement prohibited such persons from becoming the office bearers and not from being nominated to such meetings.

However, Srinivasan is not an unanimous choice with a section of BCCI wanting to propose former India captain Sourav Ganguly's name, which possibly could be an acceptable choice even for the COA.

'Ineligible' person can't be nominated: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday said a person, who is "ineligible" to become an office bearer in the BCCI and state cricket associations, cannot be nominated to take part in the ICC meeting scheduled on April 24.

"How can a man, who is not eligible to contest, be nominated to represent the BCCI? What you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly," a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said, noting that how can it allow violation of its order.

The observations came when the counsel for the apex court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) sought hearing on the interim plea seeking clarification on whether persons, who are rendered ineligible to hold posts in cricket bodies as per the July 18, 2016 judgement, can be nominated as BCCI representative to take part in the ICC meeting.

"The man who is disqualified stands disqualified...There is a cap of 70 years given by this court. It is difficult to comprehend that a man who is not eligible goes to the ICC to represent the BCCI. We do not want violation of our orders," the bench said.

The bench, however, has fixed the plea of the CoA, headed by former comptroller and auditor general (CAG) Vinod Rai, on the issue for hearing on April 17.

Senior advocate C U Singh, appearing for the CoA, asked if can persons like N Srinivasan and Niranjan Shah, rendered ineligible by virtue of the judgement, can participate in the special general body meeting of the BCCI and be nominated to take part in ICC meeting.

The CoA said the apex court had accepted suggestions of the Justice R M Lodha panel on the issue of eligibility criteria for becoming office bearers in the BCCI and state cricket bodies and one of the conditions was a person, above the age of 70 years, could not hold an office in these bodies.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal opposed the view saying that he was willing to argue the issue as the judgement prohibited such persons from becoming the office bearers and not from being nominated to such meetings.

Earlier, the apex court had accepted major recommendations of the Lodha committee on reforms in the BCCI including a bar on ministers and civil servants and those above 70 from becoming its members but left it to Parliament to decide whether it should come under RTI and betting on the game should be legalised.

It had also accepted the recommendations of the panel that there should be a CAG nominee in BCCI and one-state-one-vote principle be applied.

Meanwhile, the court modified its March 24 order by which it had asked the CoA to consider the representation of the Puducherry Cricket Association (PCA) and replaced 'PCA' by the the Cricket Association of Puducherry (CAP) as the plea was filed by the CAP.

It asked the CoA to consider the representation of the CAP on various issues including its membership to the BCCI within two weeks from on Monday.