Supreme Court Wants BCCI to Implement Age Cap, Seeks Details of Funds Given to States

Hearing the progress on the implementation of the Lodha panel report by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the Supreme Court on Thursday said it wanted "70-year-olds to enjoy cricket on TV at home and not govern the game." (Lodha Panel Report: Board of Control For Cricket in India on Sticky Wicket in Supreme Court - 10 Developments)

On the contentious issue of one-state-one-association-one-vote, the two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah, hinted at rotational membership for states like Maharashtra and Gujarat that had multiple units with voting rights. The hearing will resume on March 18, a day before the high-voltage ICC World T20 match between India and Pakistan. (Supreme Court Tells Board of Control for Cricket in India to Implement Lodha Panel Report in Full)

On January 4, 2016, the Lodha panel made several telling recommendations in its second report to the Supreme Court. It recommended legalising cricket betting in the country, while suggesting structural changes to the powerful BCCI to ensure more transparency in its operation. (Board of Control for Cricket in India Fret Over Lodha Panel Recommendations)

The panel recommended cooling off period between successive terms for top officials, suggested ministers and government servants cannot occupy BCCI posts and wants professionals under a chief executive officer to run the board's day-to-day activity.

"The country is endowed with much talent, we can't deprive you of capable honest people who want to contribute to cricket. Feeling is that politicians want to hold on to posts for power," the judges said.

More clarity on how BCCI funds were used

On Thursday, the Supreme Court sought more clarity on the usage of funds by the BCCI. The judges asked the Board to provide details of funds transferred to the state units in the last five years and how it was spent.

"Is this transfer of money a way of retaining control and power over voting rights by that state? You (BCCI) don't ask any questions about how this money is spent?" the judges asked.

The Supreme Court wanted the BCCI to appoint a CAG-appointed member to oversee its accounts.

"The CAG member will only point out where you may be going wrong, he will be your conscious keeper...Do you want a free hand dealing with crores of rupees?" the judges said.

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.

The judges on Thursday said England and Australia were experimenting with this pattern and that did not damage their cricket.

(With inputs from Sidharth Pandey)