It looks like BCCI bosses have lost their senses, as SC has directed the Committee of Administrators(CoA) (who were appointed by SC to look into the implementations of reforms suggested by Justice Lodha Committee in the BCCI)t to draft a new constitution for the BCCI, as per suggested reforms.. This action by SC has been necessitated because of stubborn attitude adopted by BCCI and associated state associations.The court further made an observation that nothing substantial has been implemented so far and hence this order to CoA.
SC also issued notices to BCCI’s President, Secretary and Joint Secretary and has sought their explanations why they have not implemented any reforms till date, as the SC passed the orders to implement the reforms on July 18, 2016, more than a year back. The court further made the comment that the office bearers of BCCI will face the consequences for not implementing its order.
The major contention between BCCI and SC is on the following points
- No Minister or bureaucrats can hold any post in the BCCI.
- Persons above the age of 70 years can not hold any post in BCCI.
- Person can hold for maximum of three terms of three years each, and cooling period of three years between two terms.
- Each state association will have one vote. Presently some states have more than one associations and each having one vote.
The last 2 points are the major issue for the BCCI, plus there are few of the BCCI or state associations office bearers who are above 70 years in age are resisting point 2. The classical example is ex BCCI President N Srnivasan, who was present in the last AGM as representative of Tamilnadu Cricket association and SC had to intervene to stop him from attending AGM. In the last hearing on 23rd Aug Counsel for BCCI said that there should be some relaxation in Lodha committee recommendations in the issue of cooling period between two terms. He pointed out that if after 3 years term a Secretary wants to contest for Presidents post then that person should be allowed and there should not be any cooling off period, indirectly what he meant was there should be cooling off period if you want to contest for the same post but not otherwise. SC did not agree and said that chance should be given to others also, and no one should have monopoly. Yesterday SC gave the indication that they are willing to re think on number of National Selectors, which Lodha Committee has reduced from 5 to 3, second point they are willing to re think is one state one vote norm.
Even after this if BCCI office bearers remain stubborn and act like we care two hoots about SC observations,in that case my advice to them,please do not to test the patience of SC judges and antagonise them, and if you do then please do not forget what happened to Subroto Roy of Sahara India who tested the patience of SC judges and antagonise them in Sahara v/s SEBI case, Subroto Roy had to spend three years in Tihar jail before getting the bail.
What will happen next in this case, please wait and watch.
What you say my friends.
Awaiting for your feed backs and comments.
Bobby
In our country, we think by having a majority, be it cash as in the case of the BCCI or votes as in the case political parties, we can do what we want. BCCI reflects the mindset of our country, the lynching mob; cowards as individuals but brave men in numbers..!
R. J. Dhople
These selfish money hungry people should have the taste of severe concerns and the after effects, for a change, by not listening to SC order. Let them suffer.