New Delhi: The Supreme Court pulled up the BCCI for objecting to most of the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee on streamlining the cricket administration and to ensure the game’s purity is maintained by the board.
A bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla refused to accept arguments by senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the BCCI, and senior counsel Kapil Sibal for the Cricket Association of Baroda and other state associations that the recommendations were not implementable.
The CJI told all counsel opposing the recommendations: “The easiest thi-ng you want is to delay. We will not let you delay and filibuster the entire exercise. We may consider referring back to the panel to have a relook at some of them.”
Mr Venu-gopal said the panel neither informed nor sought the views of past or present BCCI office-bearers.
Lodha committee never allowed us to put forward our views: BCCI to SC
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the BCCI, told the Supreme Court that the Lodha committee “never gave us an opportunity to put forward our views on the recommendations before they became part of the final report”.
The Lodha Committee sent a questionnaire to the then BCCI president, secretary and treasurer to elicit information and dates on key issues relevant for the final report, but did not seek their views on the proposed recommendations.
The counsel said if the Lodha Committee put the proposed recommendations to the BCCI and/or its office-bearers before including them in the report, several aspects on the unintended adverse impact and the consequences of implementing these could have been clarified or sorted out.
“Even now we are prepared to go back to the committee to explain our position. Let the committee hear our views and decide,” BCCI’s senior counsel Venugopal said.
As the counsel was objecting to every proposal, among them a ban on ministers and government servants holding any BCCI post, the CJI wondered: “Why are you so keen to have ministers in the BCCI... but at the same time (you) question the presence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General? You want to have a free hand to deal with crores of rupees?”
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 Board then may not be able to conduct any international matches in India. The counsel added, however, that the CAG’s representative could be an adviser without voting rights.
“As far as ministers are concerned, they are elected as members... Not because they are ministers but as they contribute to the development of the game,” he added.
The CJI quipped: “The ICC will question the presence of the CAG but not the presence of ministers? You tell them that the CAG is in the board as per the directions of this court. Take him (CAG) on the board in the interests of the game, in the interest of the public so that nothing irregular or nothing unconscionable is done.”
The counsel said the BCCI had benefited greatly from the Lodha Committee’s report, and was committed to implementing the changes or reforms in its functioning and operations to ensure greater professionalism, transparency and accountability.
The Supreme Court also sought a chart of funds given to state bodies by the BCCI in the past five years. It said: “You (BCCI) should have a development plan, and tell states on what facilities the funds should be spent.”
The next date of hearing has been set for March 18.
On the proposal for a drastic reduction in advertisements, the counsel said the current contract for international matches from 2012 to 2018 was for Rs 8,851 crores, and if the move for advertisements only during the drinks, lunch and tea breaks was accepted it would have a “crippling effect on the financial health of the BCCI and adversely impact its ability to carry out various programmes. It will substantially devalue broadcast rights and cripple BCCI’s income as broadcasters will only pay a fraction of it”.
