da pinnacle： On October 21, the Supreme Court had given the BCCI and state associations until December 3 to agree to implement the Lodha Committee’s recommendations
da mrbet： Nagraj Gollapudi04-Dec-2016On December 5, the Supreme Court of India will reconvene to address the long-standing impasse between the BCCI and the Lodha Committee. Since July 18, when it approved a majority of the recommendations proposed by the Lodha Committee for best practices in the BCCI and its state associations, the court has directed the Indian board to implement them. The BCCI, though, has steadily resisted implementing most of the recommendations.Despite finding “substance” in the Lodha Committee’s claim of the BCCI’s “intransigence”, the court opted to exercise patience. It reserved its order on “superseding” the BCCI’s office bearers with a panel of administrators, as was recommended by the committee in September.Instead, the court gave the BCCI time to prove it would convince the states to adopt the approved recommendations in total. But at three meetings conducted by the BCCI since October, including two special general meetings (SGMs), the state associations remained steadfast in their defiance of certain recommendations.Consequently, the Lodha Committee, in its latest status report, asked the court for the second time to remove all ineligible office bearers at the BCCI and state levels, and to appoint an “observer” to oversee the board’s business deals.Click here for the key points of the case till October. The following is a synopsis of the hearings since then, and the key questions before the court when it reconvenes on Monday.What did the court state in its previous order?
On October 21, the court passed an interim order asking the BCCI to “cease and desist” from disbursing funds to state associations until the association gave a written resolution that it would adopt all the recommendations approved by the court.The court also asked BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke to meet the Lodha committee within two weeks from the date of that order and submit an “affidavit of compliance”, elaborating on the recommendations already implemented by the BCCI and what it had done to persuade the state associations to adopt the remaining recommendations.Have the states submitted written undertakings?
Only the Hyderabad Cricket Association submitted an undertaking to the Lodha Committee, saying it would comply with the July 18 court order without any reservations.What about Thakur and Shirke’s affidavit of compliance?
On November 5, Thakur submitted a report to the committee stating that 30 state associations had rejected adopting the recommendations in total, and instead had wanted to vote for and against each one at the board’s SGM on October 1. Thakur said he was “rendered incapable” despite being “armed” with the court order and could not force the recommendations on the members who said any amendment to the BCCI constitution required a three-fourth majority by vote.On October 15, at an informal meeting of the board, Shirke reminded the members that not complying with the court order would have consequences. According to Thakur, the members still stuck to the decision taken at the October 1 SGM. At its latest meeting, on December 2, the BCCI said the members had reiterated their stance of not adopting the recommendations in total, and would wait for the court’s observations on December 5.What were the immediate consequences for the BCCI and the state associations?
Having understood the BCCI would not adhere to the court order, the Lodha Committee played hardball as well. It did not appoint an auditor to oversee BCCI contracts, as directed by the court on October 21, or specify the threshold limit for various contractual agreements entered into by the board, thereby limiting its operational freedom. The court had said that any contracts exceeding the threshold limit would need to be approved by the committee.The board, therefore, was unable to release funds to the states ahead of the ongoing home Test series against England. It had to approach the court, which said INR 58.66 lakh (USD 86,000 approx) could be disbursed to each of the five state associations hosting the England series.While the BCCI has been defiant in public, some of its senior office bearers and officials are worried the image of the board has taken a hit, especially after the tender for IPL broadcasting and media rights for the next cycle starting in 2018 was postponed indefinitely because the committee had not appointed an auditor or specified a threshold limit. The IPL rights bids were to be opened on October 25.What has the Lodha Committee said in its latest status report?
On November 18, the committee submitted its third status report on the BCCI’s response to the July 18 court order. It said that the office bearers of both the BCCI and the states who “fall foul” of the eligibility norms – as per the recommendations – should be removed with immediate effect. The committee also suggested that GK Pillai, the former home secretary in the federal government, be appointed an “observer” of the BCCI and that he oversee the financial transactions of the board.Is there anything else that the court needs to decide on?
There is one other issue, concerning Thakur’s alleged request to the ICC for a letter questioning whether the appointment of a comptroller and auditor general official on the proposed Apex Council amounted to government interference in the BCCI. The ICC does not permit government interference in member boards, and members can be suspended if such interference is allowed. In such a scenario, the BCCI might have used the threat of India’s suspension by the ICC as valid grounds to strike down that particular recommendation.ICC chief executive David Richardson had said Thakur had wanted such a letter. Richardson said Thakur had “verbally” asked for a letter and ICC chairman Shashank Manohar turned down the request, saying the BCCI needed to put it down in writing first. Thakur submitted an affidavit on October 17 denying the charge.In its October 21 order, the court said “prima facie” that it was clear Thakur had asked Manohar for a letter, a matter of “serious concern”. It asked the Lodha Committee to write to Manohar asking for an affidavit to “set the record straight”. On December 5, the committee will reveal the contents of the affidavit in court.
