New Delhi: The BCCI on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking review of the July 18 verdict accepting the recommendations of Justice R.M. Lodha committee for implementing sweeping administrative reforms in the Board.
In its petition, BCCI said the judgement suffered from several errors apparent on the face of the record and requires a review by a five-judge Bench, of which the CJI T.S. Thakur should not be a member. Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla, who was part of the CJI Bench had retired on July 22.
It may be recalled that soon after the verdict the Board appointed former apex court Judge Markandey Judge to study the judgment and in his report, Justice Katju had assailed the verdict and suggested for a review. Accordingly the review was filed on Tuesday.
The BCCI faulted he judgment for non-consideration and/or non-examination of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 under which it is registered, before accepting various recommendations which are contrary to the provisions thereof; interference with the internal functioning and/or management of the Board, which is outside the scope of judicial review/ interference; treatment of the committee’s observations as ‘findings’ despite the proceedings of the committee not being an inquiry; usurpation of legislative powers and consequent violation of the doctrine of separation of powers; and empowering the committee to deal with matters which the apex court and/or the committee does not have necessary expertise to deal with.
The BCCI pointed out that the judgment seeks to frame legislative measures for a private autonomous society in a field already occupied by legislation both parliamentary and state. The judgment has neither noted the contentions and facts placed by the Board correctly nor dealt with the same. It said the judgment is unconstitutional and contrary to many binding precedents of the apex court. It said the judgment adversely affects and nullifies the fundamental rights granted to citizens under Article 19(1)(c) of the constitution and further the judgment outsources judicial power to a committee of retired judges which is impermissible in law.
The Board said it was not put on notice that the observations contained in the report on the basis of which the committee has made recommendations will be treated as final and binding ‘findings’ against the Board regarding its working. If the BCCI had been put on notice that the said observations would be treated as final and binding it would have assailed the said ‘findings’. The Board did not do so because it contends the proceedings of the committee were not a full-fledged fact-finding inquiry.
