Jump to content

Supreme Court Asks BCCI To Implement Lodha Report In Full,BCCI To Reply In 4 Week


Recommended Posts

And I ask, why not? Many state associations have become so corrupt, no one is accountable. These are are the steps to bring accountability and transparancy. Just read: 

 

Lodha Committee recommendations way forward for BCCI and Indian cricket

 

 

The script unfolded as expected. Most will agree it has exceeded expectations. The Justice Lodha Commission, appointed by the Supreme Court to help reform the BCCI, has recommended sweeping changes in the Board’s functioning, which, if implemented, will transform Indian cricket for all times to come. The moot question now is whether these recommendations are binding or not. If the BCCI is to be believed, they are not. The Lodha panel, however, feels that all of its recommendations will have to be implemented. The ultimate decision now rests with the Supreme Court and that’s when we will know what the final outcome of this entire process will look like.

Some of the recommendations are truly welcome. They follow the principles of good governance and have drawn upon practices from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) charter. It is good that age, term and tenure has been recommended by the Lodha panel. To see people heading state cricket associations for decades is the worst practice of all. Such a practice erodes accountability and turns an association in a monopoly or a cartel.

And there are many such associations within the BCCI, which have been headed by the same people for more than two decades. As in the IOC, it is good that the BCCI may now have a system by which no one can hold office for more than a cumulative nine years. Importantly, there has to be a ‘cooling off’ period after one term, which means no one person can be president for two consecutive terms.

That the committee has suggested no uniformity in subsidy for state associations is a serious recommendation. There are some associations in the country that are plagued with corruption. Some of them have no accountability in terms of how crores of rupees are spent. Goa, for example, does not have a stadium and a pathetic bank balance. The question is: what happened to the hundreds of crores of subsidy that was paid to the association over the last ten years? The same question can be asked of many other associations.

The other welcome recommendation is having zones for only tournaments. If the Lodha committee has its say, zones will no longer be relevant for nomination to the BCCI or for any standing committees. This means a 2013 repeat, where there was no election because all six South Zone units professed loyalty to N Srinivasan, will no longer be possible. In 2013, while a majority of the associations were opposed to Srinivasan, the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association strongman having all South Zone votes with him ensured that he could get elected unopposed.

Finally, that the state associations may now be subject to audit by the BCCI is indeed welcome. To ensure there is no repeat of the DDCA mess, this is one recommendation that must get implemented. To reduce the number of vice presidents from five to one, and to reduce the size of the working committee to nine also makes for better and more effective governance.

Where the Lodha commission might have gone a little beyond its remit is with reference to two sets of recommendations. First, it has recommended the one state-one vote principle. On paper, this is perfectly understandable. However, the structure of Indian cricket is such that it is impossible to implement this position without destroying the very foundation of the game in India.

According to this recommendation, the three existing associations in Maharashtra — Mumbai, Cricket Club of India (CCI) and Maharashtra — will get merged into one and that one association will have one vote. But what happens to the Ranji Trophy teams from Mumbai and Maharashtra? Mumbai versus Maharashtra, like Saurashtra versus Gujarat, are key Ranji Trophy games. By suggesting a merger, the very structure of India’s premier domestic tournament gets compromised.

If the associations merge into one, only that association will be eligible to host an international game based on the BCCI’s rotation policy. In such a situation the existing infrastructure, which includes stadia and academies valued at thousands of crores, will soon turn into white elephants. Mumbai, Pune and CCI all have world-class stadia and cricket academies.

Also, the ‘one state-one vote’ principle if implemented will mean the North-East, which has little or no cricket but which comprises many small states, will suddenly turn into the controlling faction in Indian cricket. If every state is a full member and has one vote, the North-East will end up having six votes while Western India, the hotbed of cricket, will end up with two votes: Maharashtra and Gujarat.

Second, in our parliamentary democracy if someone can be, say, BJP president and home minister at the same time, what stops Anurag Thakur from being Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) president as well as BCCI secretary? In fact, he is BCCI secretary by virtue of the fact that he is a representative of the HPCA. The very same principle applies to someone like Amitabh Chowdhury who is BCCI joint secretary only because he is president of the Jharkhand Cricket Association.

The BCCI recommends that it upload details of all its meetings on its website. Surely, it can’t include selection committee meetings? And by bringing the BCCI under the ambit of the RTI can’t mean people randomly asking questions related to team selection? As for the recommendation that betting in cricket be legalised, this is welcome. Most countries allow it so why should India be any different? But what has legalising betting to do with the task of weeding out cricket match- or spotfixing?

More importantly, the BCCI doesn’t have the remit to legalise cricket betting, the government of India does. So the Lodha committee seems to have overreached its brief in this department.

But all said and done, India’s cricket administration, in the aftermath of the Lodha report, has changed. Even if some of the recommendations are implemented, the very look of the BCCI will change. And it will be for the better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bar BCCI selection meeting, people have right to know about everything else. What is it that should not not come under public domain? 

This is not tax payers money.Do people now what happens in IOA?or Fifa or other such sporting organisations?

This is a classic case of judicial overeach.While i support a strong free and impartial judiciary free of any kind of political influence,there has to be some kind of accountability else we get these kind of unnecessary judicial interventions.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Chandan said:

So any corruption, where the given given goes, its unaccountability etc is perfectly acceptable to you?

Any association registered under the societies act is accountable to the Registrar of societies of that state.SC has no business poking its nose in assoications and societies and their rules,unless ofcourse a person with locus standi raises a dispute.The SC was perfectly right in intervening in the Srinivasan conflict of interest case,but it has no right or jurisdiction to tell a organisation who should be their President how they conduct legal agreements with TV partners,how many Ads to show etc etc.

 

SC says since BCCI is dispensing a public function they should have a age limit just like SC judges retire at 65.Does the SC has the guts to say this to the politicians?Is this rule applied to other sporting federations?

 

Are there any laws in the constitution regarding this?The SC cant keep using its extraordinary jursidiction and keep making laws.Thats the job of the Parliament.

 

 

SC is just going beyond what its jurisdiction is.It has become a body above and beyond the constitution.No accountabilty has resulted into this.About time the judciary is made accountable.

 

Link to comment

Don't think they they are. If they had, the lawyers, and mind you BCCI has the topmost lawyers of the country, would not have taken even a moment to remind it.

 

You can read the complete sequence and SC had to put the Lodha Committee to give recommendations to make BCCI run better. And PILs to do so before had been done ealier too by Rahul Mehra but he wasn't successful. So what was different this time? You need to read the entire sequence, from 2012.

Link to comment
Don't think they they are. If they had, the lawyers, and mind you BCCI has the topmost lawyers of the country, would not have taken even a moment to remind it.

 

You can read the complete sequence and SC had to put the Lodha Committee to give recommendations to make BCCI run better. And PILs to do so before had been done ealier too by Rahul Mehra but he wasn't successful. So what was different this time? You need to read the entire sequence, from 2012.

BCCI lawyers have reminded the SC the same but SC seems to be making new laws.You can check it.

Rahul Mehra was not successful because the then SC judges went by the law of the land werent interested in making up laws.The present situation is that the case was originally filed on Srinivasan and his conflict of interest.After disposing that the SC took upon itself to appoint a committee and force reforms on BCCI.This is a very dangerous precedent.Infact the SC is setting such precedence of interfering in pvt. matters and in matters of policy for last couple of years.The latest is the NEET judgement.

Link to comment
Just conflict of interest? Match/spot fixing? Administrator being involved in all these? Why were two franchise suspended? Why were BCCI trying to cover all these by making 2-3 players scapegoats? 

Non of the administrators or the team owners were guilty of Match Fixing or Spot fixing.Franchisee were suspended because owners were involved in betting which is illegal in India.Even the 3 players have been acquitted by courts.

The COI charge was raised because of this exact reason that how can Srini decide the punishment for his own franchisee CSK.If he would have punished CSK there would have been no issues.

Link to comment

Exactly. And to bring these arrogant, corrupt, and malfunctioning administrators on line, SC are stepped in and Losha committe has given its recommendations to clean up the dirt in BCCI. 

 

I agree with most of its suggestion bar one or two. Like selection committee formation. i think, its fine with 5 members because India is a huge country. If any heirarchy is formed. Then its okay, but thats only for administration:

 

 

If the panel has its way, this is how the BCCI’s governing structure would look.

lusyyrgftw-1451918644.jpg

 

 

The first point that stands out from this graphic is the division of cricketing and non-cricketing responsibilities: the committee is clear that the non-cricketing day-to-day management of the board should be left to a set of professionals headed by Chief Executive Officer, who would be responsible to the Apex Council.

The committee has also called for cricketing responsibilities to only be handled by ex-cricketers:

...the pure cricketing matters (selection, coaching and performance evaluation) deserve to be left exclusively to the ex-players who have the greater domain knowledge, except for umpiring which should similarly be handled exclusively by umpires

The standard of women’s cricket and the differently-abled in the country also came under censure – the panel commented unfavourably on the deplorable manner in which women’s cricket is conducted in the country, comparing it negatively to neighbours Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Hence, the recommendation for having different committees related to Women’s Cricket, Women’s Selection and the differently-abled.

Making sense of the Justice Lodha panel report: A section-by-section analysis

Read this analysis.

 

Link to comment
Any association registered under the societies act is accountable to the Registrar of societies of that state.SC has no business poking its nose in assoications and societies and their rules,unless ofcourse a person with locus standi raises a dispute.The SC was perfectly right in intervening in the Srinivasan conflict of interest case,but it has no right or jurisdiction to tell a organisation who should be their President how they conduct legal agreements with TV partners,how many Ads to show etc etc.

 

SC says since BCCI is dispensing a public function they should have a age limit just like SC judges retire at 65.Does the SC has the guts to say this to the politicians?Is this rule applied to other sporting federations?

 

Are there any laws in the constitution regarding this?The SC cant keep using its extraordinary jursidiction and keep making laws.Thats the job of the Parliament.

 

 

SC is just going beyond what its jurisdiction is.It has become a body above and beyond the constitution.No accountabilty has resulted into this.About time the judciary is made accountable.

 

If they are private society or association they have no right to use the India and the team should be playing under the name BCCI.

They are claiming themselves a public body using the name of the country to generate profits .So of course SC has every right to involve in this .

Whether SC has the guts to say this to politicians has no relevance to SC legally asking BCCI to implement age restriction .

There is no legal overreach here from SC.Only the stench corruption of BCCI .

Link to comment
5 hours ago, beautifulgame said:

 


 

Quote

If they are private society or association they have no right to use the India and the team should be playing under the name BCCI.

Anyone has a copyright over INDIA?You believe people who use Miss India,Force India,Indian Armm Wrestling federation etc etc need permission to use the name India?Many companies use the name India.No one holds a copy right over it.

Quote

They are claiming themselves a public body using the name of the country to generate profits .So of course SC has every right to involve in this .

They are not a public body,they use no tax payer money.SC has right to get involved in case of a conflict like the one arose due to Srini and his conflict of interest.SC has no right to get involved in how a pvt party conducts its commercial activities unless they contravane laws.Neither they have the right to tell associations who they should choose their President.EVery person has the fundamental right to form association under article 19(2) of Constitution.

 

ICC,FIFA,IOC etc etc all say that the sporting body should be independent of any govt. influence.

Quote

Whether SC has the guts to say this to politicians has no relevance to SC legally asking BCCI to implement age restriction .

SC says the BCCI President is a carrying a public function and Public servants should retire just like judges do at 65.If the President and PM and MPs and MLAs can be above 70 why not the BCCI president?SC's double standards?

 

Quote

There is no legal overreach here from SC.Only the stench corruption of BCCI .

Does BCCI take even a dime of taxpayer's money?

Link to comment
On 1/5/2016 at 7:32 PM, Chandan said:

Exactly. And to bring these arrogant, corrupt, and malfunctioning administrators on line, SC are stepped in and Losha committe has given its recommendations to clean up the dirt in BCCI. 

 

I agree with most of its suggestion bar one or two. Like selection committee formation. i think, its fine with 5 members because India is a huge country. If any heirarchy is formed. Then its okay, but thats only for administration:

 

 

If the panel has its way, this is how the BCCI’s governing structure would look.

lusyyrgftw-1451918644.jpg

 

 

The first point that stands out from this graphic is the division of cricketing and non-cricketing responsibilities: the committee is clear that the non-cricketing day-to-day management of the board should be left to a set of professionals headed by Chief Executive Officer, who would be responsible to the Apex Council.

The committee has also called for cricketing responsibilities to only be handled by ex-cricketers:

...the pure cricketing matters (selection, coaching and performance evaluation) deserve to be left exclusively to the ex-players who have the greater domain knowledge, except for umpiring which should similarly be handled exclusively by umpires

The standard of women’s cricket and the differently-abled in the country also came under censure – the panel commented unfavourably on the deplorable manner in which women’s cricket is conducted in the country, comparing it negatively to neighbours Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Hence, the recommendation for having different committees related to Women’s Cricket, Women’s Selection and the differently-abled.

Making sense of the Justice Lodha panel report: A section-by-section analysis

Read this analysis.

 

1.Its not SC's job to govern associations.These are not public bodies and use no public money.SC has no job going there.

 

2.SC is basically poking its nose everywhere.This is called judicial overreach.

 

Except a few recommendations like no politicians in BCCI.No COI.CEO appointment etc.Rest recommendations mean nothing.

Link to comment

Once again you are back to square one. Why was the SC involved in the first place? Try to remember things. It has no interest in cricket, So how did it come here? How were the two franchise of IPL suspended and why? The news was out much before and all BCCI was trying was just trying to scapegoap two-three players.

 

Think you've forgotten everything.

 

Go back, read all the things and see what your holy BCCI did and how was SC forced to come in, Mudgal committee was formed, and then Lodha. I can't bring all that here.

Link to comment

What Haryana Cricket Association did not tell Supreme Court

 

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Haryana Cricket Association (HCA) for seeking to trivialise justice RM Lodha panel's recommendations concerning reforming the cricket administration in the country.

The special bench comprising chief justice TS Thakur and justice FMI Kalifulla told HCA's senior counsel Puneet Bali that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and its state units should not treat the panel's report as proposals that could be "trashed" by them.

HCA kept telling the apex court how implementation of over 70-year-old age restriction will rob it of availing the services of "India's finest administrator" Ranbir Singh Mahendra.

Mahendra had defeated Sharad Pawar by one vote in 2004 to become president of BCCI.

HCA counsel submitted before the court that its secretary Anirudh Chaudhry — son of Mahendra — had not been heard by justice Lodha panel.

Chaudhary was co-ordinator of justice Lodha panel in his capacity as BCCI treasurer. Chaudhary, along with president Jagmohan Dalmiya and secretary Anurag Thakur, was called by the committee to depose on April 8, 2015 in a south Mumbai hotel.

However, none of them turned up that day. Lodha panel then sent them 87 questions to all the stake holders in BCCI. It's a different matter that HCA chose to ignore that too. Also, being co-ordinator of justice Lodha panel, Chaudhary had a chance to submit his suggestions any time during the long process.

'Emergency capture'

What Chaudhary did not tell the special bench is how allegedly "HCA was captured by his grandfather Bansi Lal during the 1975 Emergency period".

Reportedly one fine day, the once powerful politician in Haryana decided to dethrone the then HCA president ML Jain to commence his family's innings there.

Chaudhary also did not tell the apex court that "not a single cricketer of repute has ever been allowed to become a member of HCA".

How can anyone forget the infamous incident during the 1994 annual general meeting of HCA in Chandigarh where India's greatest all-rounder Kapil Dev, along with a host of other cricketers --- both national and international, were humiliated by his father's (Mahendra) coterie.

Chaudhary should also have told the court about how in 1992, then India speedster Chetan Sharma was forced to leave Haryana and play for Bengal after he was "dropped" from the North Zone squad at the behest of his father.

Cricket followers in Haryana will hardly forget the summer of 1997 when Sharma, after his brief stint in Bengal, decided to come back to his home state. Having a distinction of playing for India for over a decade (23 Tests and 68 One-dayers) and after taking 433 first class wickets combined with more than 5000 runs, Sharma was first made to play the district tournament before appearing for Ranji Trophy trials.

Being a cricketer, Sharma accepted all this but Mahendra went a step ahead to make him an example for other cricketers in his 'kingdom'.

"I was not even named in the list of 50 probables announced for the Ranji camp after playing nearly 22 years for Haryana and 10 years for India. And this too when I was only 31-years old," Sharma told dna on Monday.

HCA's senior counsel Bali probably had no courage to ask the details of state cricket history because his son Treyaksh Bali has been representing Haryana junior teams.

Treyaksh led Haryana Under-16 team in 2015-16 season without much to show in his score-sheet.

He was also part of Haryana's U-19 team.

HCA had no answer to apex Court's query that despite getting well over Rs 100 crores since 2010 why "no international stadium has been built in Haryana?"

Haryana has only one stadium to show and that too built near Rohtak (Lahli), which cannot be counted as of international standards.

dna's query has revealed that out of these over Rs 100 crore that HCA got from BCCI, only a paltry amount of Rs 1 lakh per year (four district associations confirmed) has been given to 21 district cricket associations, as their share.

The matter has now been posted for Tuesday when court appointed amicus curiae Gopal Subramanium will make his presentation.

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

Read this article to know further why BCCI needs to be cleaned up from politics and other dirt if we need cricket.

 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

1.Its not SC's job to govern associations.These are not public bodies and use no public money.SC has no job going there.

 

2.SC is basically poking its nose everywhere.This is called judicial overreach.

 

Except a few recommendations like no politicians in BCCI.No COI.CEO appointment etc.Rest recommendations mean nothing.

Congress used the same argument in National Herald case, but the supreme court said Congress is a national entity and not a private body. BCCI is not a private property, its a national entity.

Link to comment
Congress used the same argument in National Herald case, but the supreme court said Congress is a national entity and not a private body. BCCI is not a private property, its a national entity.

Read the whole thing.Congress is a political party and and governed by rules framed to administer political parties.It doesnot pay taxes on its income and hence cant be involved in any profit making business.It broke those laws.

BCCI is not a government entity and the SC has no job telling them how to select teams how to sell its Tv rights who to elect its President etc etc.It is not the supreme courts job to govern cricket.

Link to comment

BCCI constitution incapable of achieving transparency: SC

 

Quote

The remarks were made after Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who was appointed as amicus curiae

by the apex court to assist it on the issue, said if the constitution of BCCI does not allow the values to be achieved then it could be said to be illegal as the cricket board is discharging public function.

"You discharge public function but you want to enjoy private status. If you have public persona then you have to shed private persona. This cannot be done. It selects national team for the country, it cannot be a private society. It is a public entity," Subramaniam said.

Justifying the recommendations of Justice R M Lodha panel for large-scale structural reforms, he said had the BCCI adhered to the constitutional values there would not have been need for recommendations.

Can you read??? @Malcolm Merlyn

 

Link to comment
BCCI constitution incapable of achieving transparency: SC

 

The remarks were made after Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who was appointed as amicus curiae

by the apex court to assist it on the issue, said if the constitution of BCCI does not allow the values to be achieved then it could be said to be illegal as the cricket board is discharging public function.

"You discharge public function but you want to enjoy private status. If you have public persona then you have to shed private persona. This cannot be done. It selects national team for the country, it cannot be a private society. It is a public entity," Subramaniam said.

Justifying the recommendations of Justice R M Lodha panel for large-scale structural reforms, he said had the BCCI adhered to the constitutional values there would not have been need for recommendations.

Can you read??? @Malcolm Merlyn

 

Read previous SC judgements.They agreed that BCCI was a pvt body.This SC bench is hell bent on asserting its authority.BCCI uses no public fund.Its a society registered under societies act and it is a member of ICC and governs cricket according to them.It uses no public money gets no subsidy.Its not answerable to the govt. But to ICC and registrar of societies.

The SC is interfering in everyone's sphere and wants to rule by decree.This isnt a isolated event.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

BCCI uses no public fund.Its a society registered under societies act and it is a member of ICC and governs cricket according to them.It uses no public money gets no subsidy.Its not answerable to the govt. But to ICC and registrar of societies.

This is not true. BCCI gets many benefits from the government such as: tax benefits, building of stadiums at subsidized rates through discounted lands, customs exemption for import of ground equipment, security at no cost, etc. In 2007, BCCI sought for these exemptions under posing as a national sports federation (NSF). Any NSF which gets 10 lakhs or more from the government is considered a public body. BCCI is registered as a charitable organization and enjoyed many tax benefits in the past. The tax exemption was taken away later.

 

28 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Read previous SC judgements.They agreed that BCCI was a pvt body. This SC bench is hell bent on asserting its authority.

In 2004, the Delhi high court passed a historic judgment declaring that since BCCI performs public function by selecting a national cricket team, they can be challenged and held accountable. In 2010, the Kerala high court ruled that cricket officials are public servants and this decision was upheld by the SC.

 

In 2005, the SC stated that BCCI was an autonomous body....fair enough. However, the same court clarified that the judgement did not mean that the sports bodies could get away with whatever irregularities committed by them. This clarification needs to be emphasized here. When a national organization is corrupt and does not want to be held accountable, then the judiciary needs to step in. 

 

Link to comment
In 2004, the Delhi high court passed a historic judgment declaring that since BCCI performs public function by selecting a national cricket team, they can be challenged and held accountable. In 2010, the Kerala high court ruled that cricket officials are public servants and this decision was upheld by the SC.

 

In 2005, the SC stated that BCCI was an autonomous body....fair enough. However, the same court clarified that the judgement did not mean that the sports bodies could get away with whatever irregularities committed by them. This clarification needs to be emphasized here. When a national organization is corrupt and does not want to be held accountable, then the judiciary needs to step in. 

 

You are absolutely wrong.BCCI doesnot get any tax exemptions.Only when it holds an ICC event that event gets tax exemption.BCCI pays crores in taxes.

Stadiums are built by BCCI by a tendering process.No govt subsidy.

Many private academies and institutions get subsidised land so does BCCI does that mean the court can run those academies and institutions?

The SC in 2005 held that BCCI was pvt club consortium and autonomous body.While the court can look into irregularities like it did in Srini's case it cannot throw out the BCCIs constitution and decide how cricketers are to be selected how Tv rights are to be given how many ads to be shown who to be the President.

The public body argument doesnt hold because public bodies also have autonomy.Can the SC say people above 70 cant be CM or PM or President or MLA or MP?If they can be all this why not BCCI President?

Can the SC decide how should the PM select his council of ministers or candidates for the party?All political parties are also public organisations.

Can the SC decide the terms and conditions BPCL or HPCL or IOC or ONGC or BSNL sign agreements and other commercial activity?These are public companies owned by GOI.

Unless the asset is owned by the govt and is a national asset the SC has no right to tell how i sell it.The TV rights dont belong to the govt and SC cannot tell how many Ads to show.

This present dispensation at SC wants to run the country by decree.Whether it is striking down the NJAC or suddenly removing MCI and running it by SC appointed committee or interfering into state's right to decide how they conduct entrance exams.The SC is interfering in everyone's sphere.

Link to comment

 

@

Malcolm Merlyn I Think you have quite wrong perception. Even at the time of Rahul Mehra and now since the advent of this decade, it has been proved many many times that BCCI is a public body and it chooses a team for the nation.

 

You need to go to BCCI finances to know how much tax waiver they get and how many stadiums are built are on land given by Govt.

 

Think you need to read extensively these days. Have fallen back.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...