BCCI members dilly-dally on Supreme Court order

Many members in the state units are interpreting the Supreme Court order in their own convenient way.

(Representative Image) The Supreme Court, by an earlier order though, had explained that a person can hold office at the BCCI for 9 years and also at the state-level for 9 years, thus giving him or her a maximum run of 18 years with cooling off periods.

It’s been a little over three weeks since the Supreme Court appeared to have said the last word on the implementation of the Justice Lodha Committee Reforms in cricket administration, specifying timelines for registration of the new BCCI Constitution with the Registrar of Societies in Chennai (Tamil Nadu).

And, for members to follow suit within one month and report compliance to the Committee of Administrators (CoA).

The Supreme Court order of August 9 was clear: it asked the Registrar of Societies,Tamil Nadu to register the new BCCI Constitution as soon as the BCCI CEO presented the relevant documents.

While the authorities in Chennai registered the constitution on August 21, there has not been the slightest hint of BCCI members showing any urgency to amend its Constitution and registering it with the local authorities.

The Supreme Court had said the CoA should submit a Status Report on compliance by BCCI members.

“There is a two-member CoA running the Mumbai Cricket Association; they could have amended the MCA Constitution and registered the new constitution with the State Charity Commissioner's office.

“If the BCCI can do it why not the MCA CoA? Many members are interpreting the Supreme Court order in their own convenient way. Tripura, Vidarbha and Hyderabad were said to have implemented the Lodha Reforms, but there are anomalies,” said a BCCI official.

As of now the BCCI members are trying to figure out disqualification clause 6 (5f) spelt out in the August 9 order of the Supreme Court.

It says: “a person shall be disqualified from being an office-bearer, a member of the Governing Council or any committee or a representative to the ICC or any similar organisation if he or she has been an office-bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of nine years or of a State association for a cumulative period of nine years.”

The Supreme Court, by an earlier order though, had explained that a person can hold office at the BCCI for 9 years and also at the State level for 9 years, thus giving him or her a maximum run of 18 years with cooling off periods. Going by this rationale the CoA in its draft Constitution had said that a person will be disqualified only if he or she "Has been an office bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years.’’   Even the amicus curiae, Gopal Subramanium’s view on this matter is that a person can serve for a period of  nine years in the BCCI and nine years in a State association.