The outcome of the BCCI’s Special General Meeting requisitioned by a majority of the general body at New Delhi on Sunday (April 9) will offer clear-cut pointers on whether the 31 full members, and, in particular, the State Associations, will follow the disqualification norms mentioned by the Supreme Court judgement of July 18, 2016 and its order of January 2, 2017.
Officials who have influenced decisions at the BCCI for many years believe the age cap of 70 is applicable only to office-bearers and does not debar them from being nominated by their States for BCCI meetings and by the BCCI itself to ICC Board and other committees.
In a telephone conference on Friday, in which many State associations discussed the SGM on Sunday, the opinion was that representatives nominated by full members/States should be allowed to attend the SGM.
It would be interesting to see whether N. Srinivasan (disqualified on multiple counts, including the age cap), Niranjan Shah (Saurashtra Cricket Association) and a number of other disqualified officials would actually be nominated as representatives for the SGM.
A participant in the telecon revealed that Srinivasan had given indications that he could attend the SGM. The full member representatives are likely to plan their strategy on Saturday.
The January 2 order of the Supreme Court was direct, saying that Anurag Thakur, BCCI president, and Ajay Shirke, secretary, shall forthwith cease and desist from being associated with the working of the BCCI.
Yet, the Maharashtra Cricket Association, at its meeting on January 7, appointed Shirke as its representative at BCCI meetings.
MCA’s current president, Advocate Abhay Apte, has also attended BCCI meetings before though and it’s possible he may represent MCA at the SGM.
After a meeting with the BCCI office-bearers (not disqualified by the Supreme Court order) in Hyderabad on April 4, the CoA had issued a reminder to the BCCI that it had the mandate to run the affairs of the BCCI through the CEO.
The CoA directions say: (a) the Committee of Administrators shall supervise the management and administration of the BCCI through its CEO; (b) the office-bearers shall function subject to the supervision and control of the CoA; (c) the CoA will have the power to issue all appropriate directions to facilitate due supervision and control of the functioning of BCCI; and (d) the CEO shall report to the CoA.
One of the eight directions issued by the CoA says: The CoA request that notice of any meeting of any committee/sub-committee or general body of the BCCI shall be simultaneously given to the CEO along with the agenda and related documents that are circulated to persons/members entitled to attend such meetings.
All decisions taken during such meetings should be intimated by the chairman of the meeting to the CEO in writing on the same day. The CEO shall be entitled to be present at any such meeting.
In another significant development the CoA has not allowed the BCCI office-bearers to employ their legal team. It has said: “The CEO alone shall continue to sign all pleadings, affidavits, applications, etc, in respect of legal proceedings filed by or against the BCCI. The CEO alone shall continue to issue instructions to advocates/legal advisors in relation to fresh as well as pending legal proceedings under the supervision and control of the CoA.
Comments
SHARE