Gopal Subramanium does not want to continue as Amicus Curiae

Following a Supreme Court decision, Subramanium, after taking into account suggestions from BCCI, had played a vital role in giving shape to the board’s draft Constitution.

The Supreme Court may consider Subramanium’s request at an appropriate time early next year.

Gopal Subramanium has told the Supreme Court that it will not be possible for him to continue as Amicus Curiae (AC) in five cases, including the BCCI case linked to the implementation of the Lodha reforms.

In a letter dated November 25, addressed to Ravindra Maithani, secretary general, Registry, Supreme Court of India, Subramanium says: “Due to certain unavoidable personal circumstances, which have recently arisen and demand my attention, I will be unable to continue as Amicus Curiae in the following matters (1) Sri Marthanda Varma (deceased, through LRS) v State of Kerala (appointed AC in August 2012), (2) BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar (appointed ACin April 2016), (3) KS Kuppuswamy v Kongu Vellar Higher Secondary School & others (appointed AC in July 2016), (4) Mrinalini Padhi v Union of India (appointed AC in June 2018) and (5) Ankur Guthka v Indian Asthma Care Society & Others (appointed in 2007).

READ| Edulji accuses Johri of ‘insubordination’

Shaping BCCI draft constitution

Following a Supreme Court decision, Subramanium, after taking into account suggestions from BCCI, had played a vital role in giving shape to the board’s draft Constitution.

Subramanium agreed to the voting rights of Railways being restored, otherwise he went along with Lodha recommendations of ‘One State, One Member, One Vote’ policy.

He agreed that a person can have a maximum tenure of nine years each with the BCCI and state associations, with the cooling off period in place. He also agreed to the composition of the selection committee to five members.

With regard to the vexing cooling off period issue, the apex court said: “The amicus has earnestly supported the cooling-off requirement as being necessary, having regard to the spirit of the Lodha Committee recommendations.’’

The Supreme Court may consider Subramanium’s request at an appropriate time early next year.