Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Finalising Cricket Board Constitution
The Supreme Court also did not agree with the Lodha Committee recommendation for a three-year cooling off period before seeking re-election.
Highlights
-
The apex court restrained all state cricket bodies from holding elections
-
The Lodha panel recommended that there must be a cooling off period
-
The apex court is likely to pronounce orders after two weeks
The Supreme Court on Thursday restrained all state cricket bodies from holding elections till it pronounced a verdict on finalisation of the draft constitution of the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI), as it reserved the judgement on the issue. The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce orders on the constitution after two weeks. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud also asked the high courts not to entertain any plea on the appointment of administrators for state cricket bodies.
The court said it will also consider modifying the earlier verdict on 'one state, one vote' and interpretation of the cooling-off period for BCCI office bearers.
The top court had earlier asked the state cricket associations and BCCI office-bearers to give suggestions on the draft constitution for the apex cricket body to the amicus, saying these have to be in tune with the Lodha panel recommendations and its verdict. The draft, to be finalised by the court, would be binding on the BCCI.
However, the bench had clarified that its order on the petitions seeking recall of the 2016 verdict would deal with the validity of the draft constitution. The Justice Lodha panel had recommended a slew of structural reforms in BCCI which were approved by the apex court. The court had approved these recommendations such as 'one state, one vote', 'one member, one post' and fixing an age-cap of 70 years on those occupying BCCI posts.
"We are not accepting cooling off period suggested by Lodha panel," the Supreme Court said. "We are accepting BCCI suggestion . So no cooling off period."
The Lodha panel had recommended that there must be a cooling off period after any BCCI office-bearer's three year tenure before they could stand for re-election.
The BCCI, on the other hand, had suggested to that instead of cooling off period, an official should be allowed to contest for other posts.
The Supreme Court agreed with Amicus Curiae Gopal Subramanium's suggestions that there should be five selectors instead of three.
(With inputs from A. Vaidyanathan)