New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its order relating to the implementation of Justice Lodha committee on structural reforms even as the BCCI sought more time to comply with the order.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thkaur and Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud reserved order after hearing senior counsel Kapil Sibal for the BCCI and amicus curiae Gopal Subramanium urging the court to appoint interim administrators for the Board.
Earlier the court found divergent views of the BCCI President Anurag Thakur, denying allegations that he stopped implementation of recommendations of Justice RM Lodha panel.
Mr Thakur, in his affidavit, pointed out that his conversation with former BCCI president and current ICC chairman Shashank Manohar seeking clarification relating to appointment of a nominee of CAG was closed after Mr Manohar had explained to him. However, Mr Ratnakar Shetty had filed an affidavit that no letter was written to the ICC in this regard and that the ICC CEO David Richardson had given a false statement in this regard.
The affidavit of Anurag Thakur further points out that “Manohar (when he was BCCI president) had taken a view that the recommendations of Justice Lodha committee appointing the nominee of CAG on apex council would amount to government interference and might invoke an action of suspension from ICC; therefore requested him that being the ICC Chairman can a letter be issued.”
Mr Subramanium also wanted that funding to the states be stopped until they implement the recommendations, and that future BCCI contracts go “through the medium” of the Lodha Committee to ensure they are compliant with the new recommendations.
Mr Sibal sought more time from the court to “persuade” the Board’s state associations to implement the recommendations. He also said the BCCI could then provide evidence of the recommendations already implemented and a time-frame for other recommendations to be put in place.
Mr Subramanian said the action of BCCI was nothing but defiance and pleaded for supercession of the office-bearers. He also demanded initiation of civil as well as criminal contempt against them to ensure that the majesty of law prevailed.
