BCCI files reply in Supreme Court on Lodha report

Sources said that the BCCI has opposed almost every recommendation of the Lodha panel, notably the ‘one person, one post’ rule, age limit and tenure cap, bar on ministers or government servants holding positions in the BCCI, ‘one State, one vote’.

Sources said that the BCCI has opposed almost every recommendation of the Lodha panel.   -  Reuters

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) filed a detailed counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court on Tuesday conveying its practical difficulties in complying with the recommendations of the apex court-appointed Justice R. M. Lodha Committee.

The Supreme Court hearing in the case is scheduled on March 3.

Sources said that the BCCI has opposed almost every recommendation of the Lodha panel, notably the ‘one person, one post’ rule, age limit and tenure cap, bar on ministers or government servants holding positions in the BCCI, ‘one State, one vote’.

The Lodha Committee had recommended an age limit of 70 for BCCI office-bearers and suggested that they hold office for three years with three maximum terms, and with a cooling-off period between each term.

Sources said that the Board has also objected to the Lodha Committee’s suggestion to include two representatives from the franchisees in the Indian Premier League governing council. On February 4, a Bench of Chief Justice of India T. S. Thakur and F. M. I. Kalifulla had described the Justice Lodha panel report on overhaul of BCCI as “straight-forward, rational and understandable”.

Fall in line

The Bench had sternly advised the cricket body to “fall in line” with the recommendations and save itself further trouble. “Your members have been wielding power for long... The match is over. There will be no second innings here,” the Chief Justice had made the court’s resolve amply clear. The BCCI had responded that it did respect the recommendations, but required time to first extensively deliberate with its 30-odd members.

The Board had even then submitted that the implementation of the report’s sweeping reforms in full would give rise to “all sorts of complications”.