NEW DELHI: A final verdict from the Supreme Court on a matter it has already adjudicated on twice but has chosen to revisit yet again (emphasis ours) – reforms in Indian cricket administration – may be a long way off still (emphasis ours yet again), but at least now there is a date when the hearings will resume.
At the next hearing scheduled for December 9, the Supreme Court will begin hearings on a whole host of issues linked to the challenges brought by various interested parties to the final verdict delivered by a three-judge Bench of the apex court (and headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra no less).
What is most under the media spotlight of course is the case of BCCI secretary Jay Shah (son of Union home minister Amit Shah) and Indian cricket board president Sourav Ganguly (former Team India captain).
The terms of Ganguly and Shah, as per the approved/registered BCCI constitution, got over some months ago (in July and May respectively), but they are still very much ensconced in power “awaiting court directions”. Taking a cue from his bosses, BCCI joint secretary Jayesh George, whose term is also over, is also happily continuing in his post.
As PS Narasimha, amicus curiae in the case and senior advocate, told IANS on Wednesday: “On December 9, only a part of it will be over, and sometime after that will be the final hearing.
“On December 9, the issues that can be resolved by the High Courts will be heard — the intra-state disputes of the state cricket associations and all that. It will not be so much about the states’ constitutions; it will be about some members not being allowed [into the association], some members being thrown out [of the associations]; members’ grievances etc.”
Narasimha further told the newswire that only some of the many interlocutory applications, which have been filed in the BCCI reforms case and which could be decided by the High Courts, would be heard on December 9.
Many state cricket associations and individuals have filed interlocutory applications in the case that have been clubbed together and are being heard.
For the record, BCCI treasurer Arun Singh Dhumal had filed an application seeking several reliefs on April 21. It is in regards to said application that the Supreme Court has to rule.
To recap what has happened thus far, two former Supreme Court Chief Justices have pronounced historic judgements in the BCCI case. Justice TS Thakur had pronounced the first judgment on July 18, 2016, and then Justice Deepak Misra pronounced a final judgment on August 9, 2018.
Both the judgments followed on from the recommendations made by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha, who headed a three-member committee that suggested unprecedented reforms in the administration of the BCCI. These reforms, if finally approved (that they have been approved TWICE by Chief Justices no less is cannot have been lost on the apex court’s current dispensation), have the potential to trigger reforms the other sports bodies of the country as well.
To further recap for the record: On August 9, 2018, a Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra approved the draft constitution of the cash-rich apex cricket body in the country with certain modifications and asked the registrar general of Tamil Nadu Societies to bring on record the approved BCCI constitution within four weeks (emphasis ours).
The Bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, restored permanent membership to Railways, Services and Universities.
It also directed state cricket associations to adopt the BCCI constitution within 30 days (emphasis ours) and warned them that non-compliance would invite action in accordance with its earlier order. Dealing with the issue of a cooling-off period and disqualification of BCCI office-bearers, the Bench said a person would have to go through a cooling-off period after holding a post in the board for two consecutive terms. “… In our view it would be appropriate to direct that a cooling off period of three years after an individual holds two successive terms in office either in the BCCI, or in any state association, or a combination of the two,” the apex court order read.
The justice Lodha panel had recommended a slew of structural reforms in BCCI which were approved by the apex court. The court had approved these recommendations, including “one state, one vote”, “one member, one post” and fixing an age cap of 70 years on those occupying BCCI posts. The Lodha panel was formed in January 2015 following the justice Mukul Mudgal Committee report that called for reforms in BCCI. The Mudgal panel had gone into the state of affairs of BCCI, following the 2013 IPL (Indian Premier League) betting and spot-fixing controversy.
The court had, in its 18 July 2016 verdict, accepted most of the recommendations of the Lodha committee to reform BCCI following charges of large-scale maladministration in the cash-rich cricket body.
