No Ministers, Adopt One-State-One-Vote Policy: Supreme Court Orders BCCI
The Supreme Court has accepted a large chunk of the recommendations made by the Justice Lodha panel. These are aimed at making the BCCI more transparent and accountable
Highlights
-
Supreme Court has accepted most recommendations made by Lodha Panel
-
The proposals are aimed at reforms in the century-old BCCI
-
Age caps for officials will hurt several senior Board officials
A two-judge Bench of Supreme Court of India on Monday ordered several changes in the working of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). After accepting many proposals made by the RM Lodha panel, the top court made some telling decisions that will impact how the richest cricket Board in the world is governed.
No ministers, age cap of 70 and one-state-one-vote policy will shake up the century-old BCCI. Several top BCCI members -- like Sharad Pawar (Mumbai), N. Srinivasan (Tamil Nadu) and Niranjan Shah (Saurashtra) -- who also lead their respective state associations, are all above 70 years.
The Supreme Court Bench, consisting of current Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla, wanted the Lodha panel recommendations implemented in the next six months. Retired Justice Lodha and his panel will oversee the transition.
"Nobody above the age of 70 will be office bearer of the BCCI. A person cannot be simultaneously an office-bearer in the state cricket association as well as in the BCCI," the Bench said.
The Chief Justice said, "We hope this verdict will bring in some reforms and BCCI must accept change."
"It's a great day for Indian cricket. I am sure BCCI will implement the recommendations at the earliest," Justice Lodha said after the landmark verdict.
'BCCI has no transparency'
Talking to NDTV, Lodha said: "BCCI has no transparency, no accountability. Same persons are running the board for decades.
"If 70-year-old people are running BCCI, how will young administrators get the chance? Having no ministers in BCCI will help as they have more important thing to do. Cricket is full-time job."
Although the BCCI lawyers said "it will show greatest respect in implementing the judgment", BCCI officials were unhappy with the Supreme Court offer. The Board has repeatedly argued against the implementation of the Lodha panel report.
The BCCI's Annual general meeting is scheduled in September and it remains to be seen how the new one-state-one-vote policy is implemented. States like Maharashtra and Gujarat have multiple units with voting rights. The court has ordered "rotational" voting.
Unhappy BCCI to study judgement
"We will study the judgement in our next meeting," said IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla, who is also a senior functionary of the Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association.
The Supreme Court, however, left it to the Parliament to decide whether the BCCI should come under RTI.
The Lodha panel and the Supreme Court judges had felt that since BCCI discharges a public function and has monopoly over the game in India, it should come under RTI.
The top court has also left it to the Parliament to decide whether betting should be legalised. It also left it to the BCCI to work out an arrangement with its broadcaster regarding advertisements during live matches.
The entire court proceedings were triggered by the 2013 IPL betting and spot-fixing scandal. It was on the basis of the Lodha panel's report that Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals were banned from the IPL for two years.
(With Inputs from A Vaidyanathan and Jaideep Anil Bhandarkar)