Court to BCCI: 'Fall in line or we will make you fall in line'

[gakgupta]

Really liked the statement "Fall in line or we will make you fall in line"

 

 

 

The Supreme Court of India has warned the BCCI that if it "does not fall in line" and follow the court's directive to implement the Lodha Committee's recommendations, it will take measures to enforce them. The Chief Justice of India TS Thakur told the BCCI's lawyer that the board, which has been accused of stalling by the Lodha Committee, had one week to respond.

"BCCI thinks it is law unto itself," Thakur was quoted as saying byIndian Express. "We know how to get our orders implemented. BCCI thinks it is the lord. You better fall in line or we will make you fall in line. The conduct of the BCCI is in poor taste."

Thakur was responding to the status report submitted by the Lodha Committee on Wednesday. In its report, the Committee had asked theSupreme Court to "supersede" the BCCI's top brass with "immediate effect" because its officials had not complied with various timelines set by the committee to implement the recommendations passed by the Supreme Court order on July 18.

 

 

Lodha hits out at BCCI president Thakur

In its status report filed in the Supreme Court, the Lodha Committee singled out BCCI president Anurag Thakur for making "objectionable" statements that "undermined" the court order. The report also said Thakur had failed to respond to or meet the Committee even once.

"Despite several emails sent to the President of BCCI as well as a direction to appear on August 9, there has been not a single response by him to the Committee," RM Lodha, the chairman of the Committee, said in the report. "He has also requested the ICC to issue a letter stating that this Committee amounts to Governmental interference. In addition, over the course of the last few weeks, several very objectionable statements have been made by him to the press which undermine this Hon'ble Court and this Committee."

Lodha cited statements made by Thakur over the last few months that highlighted how the BCCI was being "sidelined", "arm twisted" and pushed into a corner by "people who have never even played the game, they are trying to govern the board."

 

 

 

"BCCI, it seems, will go to the extent of defying court orders," Thakur said. "We had been anticipating such disregard from the board. We don't appreciate such tactics by the BCCI. We have no difficulty in passing orders to make sure our previous orders are implemented."

The Lodha Committee had asked the BCCI and its state associations to adopt the new Memorandum of Association and Rules by September 30. It had also sent the BCCI two sets of timelines with various deadlines to implement the recommendations within the six-month time frame set by the court.

In the status report RM Lodha, the chairman of the committee, pointed out that the BCCI had not yet complied with seven timelines, and that it was unlikely the board would do so before the September 30 deadline. The BCCI has called for a special general body meeting (SGM) on September 30, when board secretary Ajay Shirke said it would "consider" the amendmentsrecommended by the Lodha Committee.

According to a senior official privy to the meetings between the Lodha Committee and the BCCI, the SGM was the "last chance" for the board. "The SGM is really their complete last chance to ensure compliance. If they haven't got all those seven timelines in place and don't adopt the new rules and regulations, they will have no further chance."

The BCCI has offered resistance to the Lodha Committee's recommendations, having filed a review petition last month against the Supreme Court's order directing it to implement most of the recommendations. In the petition, the BCCI called the court order "unreasoned" and asked for the recusal of chief justice Thakur from its hearing. However, the petition has been lying "in defect" because the court raised technical objections to the petition and asked the BCCI to repair them.

The Lodha Committee - comprising Lodha and retired Supreme Court judges Ashok Bhan and R Raveendran - was formed in January 2015 to determine appropriate punishments for some of the officials involved in the 2013 IPL corruption scandal, and also to propose changes to streamline the BCCI, reform its functioning, prevent sporting fraud and conflict of interest.

[Tibarn]

BCCI should stand their ground. These judges are overreaching. 

[G_B_]

While not bringing in politics into cricket, the court will be wise to remember what has recently happened in Arunachal with regards to their judgement. Do not overreach.

 

 

[velu]

we need mamas guidance to put SC in its rightful place  

[fineleg]

Its the reverse, SC needs to put BCCI and its honchos in the right place. And I hope SC indeed shows BCCI that they need to follow SC orders.

[Muloghonto]

When people say 'courts need to be put in their place', it reminds me why india is so backwards, corrupt and just 2 steps ahead of Pakistan. 

Civilized countries and societies do not think 'courts need to be put in their place'. They see court as the absolute, total, all-encompassing and final authority in any manner of dispute resolution. 

 

[CG]

While not bringing in politics into cricket, the court will be wise to remember what has recently happened in Arunachal with regards to their judgement. Do not overreach.

 

 

What overreach?They have constitution authority to implement their orders.

[CG]

When people say 'courts need to be put in their place', it reminds me why india is so backwards, corrupt and just 2 steps ahead of Pakistan. 

Civilized countries and societies do not think 'courts need to be put in their place'. They see court as the absolute, total, all-encompassing and final authority in any manner of dispute resolution. 

 

Don't know why people want same crooks to continue at Bcci and not bring professionalism and transparency.

[gakgupta]

BCCI should stand their ground. These judges are overreaching. 

Do u get any cut from these BCCI Babu's loot...

Some good is happening and you don't want it to happen

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

[Texan]

While generally I am all for following an SC verdict, some of the Lodha recommendations just do not seem right. For example the one state one vote one. That means Mumbai, which has won half the Ranji Trophies ever played and produced some of the greatest cricketers to have played for India gets one-third of the vote of say a state like Tripura. That just does not seem right.

 

[velu]

1 hour ago, gakgupta said:

Do u get any cut from these BCCI Babu's loot...

Some good is happening and you don't want it to happen

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

SC should not frame the law , they shld just bother abt protecting the existing laws ..

 

one of the recommendations like retirement age should not be fixed by SC 

[BeautifulGame]

While generally I am all for following an SC verdict, some of the Lodha recommendations just do not seem right. For example the one state one vote one. That means Mumbai, which has won half the Ranji Trophies ever played and produced some of the greatest cricketers to have played for India gets one-third of the vote of say a state like Tripura. That just does not seem right.

 

It's because voting shouldn't be based on how many trophies u have won.It should be about democratic representation.

The three states Maharashtra , Gujarat and Goa has more representation than entire Southern India or Eastern India .

With such lop sided representatives how will it ensure fare funding (Bihar recieved less funding than Goa for years for instance ) or when international matches are allocated ?

Winning Ranji trophy should have no relevance in voting representation.

[Muloghonto]

32 minutes ago, velu said:

 

SC should not frame the law , they shld just bother abt protecting the existing laws ..

 

one of the recommendations like retirement age should not be fixed by SC 

That is exactly the job of the Supreme Court. 
Or do you think when Indian politicians pass a bill into law, they come up with each and every exception clause, sub article b) part III by themselves ?
No. 
The process is, when a law is passed, it is passed. 
If someone finds an exception scenario to the law, they challenge it in Supreme court or petition supreme court to fix the law. Then the supreme court fixes the law and comes up with all the exception clauses they can think of. 

So i don't see what you mean SC should not frame the law- that is quite literally 90% of their job. The SC doesnt exist to be the final appeals court of the judicial system. That is NOT its job. Which is why nobody has the right to appeal the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has the right to REJECT hearing your appeal. The Job of the Supreme court, as in every other nation's Supreme Court, is primarily to be the safeguard of the constitutionality & legality of the laws being passed by the government. Most Supreme Courts worldwide spend over 80% of their hours of operation dealing with the above mentioned aspect and maybe 10% of the time it acts as 'final stop of appeals court'. 

 

[moniker]

When people say 'courts need to be put in their place', it reminds me why india is so backwards, corrupt and just 2 steps ahead of Pakistan. 

Civilized countries and societies do not think 'courts need to be put in their place'. They see court as the absolute, total, all-encompassing and final authority in any manner of dispute resolution. 

 

People are exercising their right to criticize the judiciary which is protected by the Indian constitution. Fair criticism of the judiciary comes under the freedom of speech guaranteed as a fundamental right.

All three branches of a democratic government - judiciary, executive and legislature can be subjected to fair criticism.

Yes, the court is the final authority for dispute resolution, but that does not mean people cannot choose to disagree with the manner with which the dispute was resolved and exercise their right to express their displeasure.

[G_B_]

15 hours ago, CG said:

What overreach?They have constitution authority to implement their orders.

Exactly. Implement orders. Not make orders..

 

 

[Texan]

17 hours ago, BeautifulGame said:

It's because voting shouldn't be based on how many trophies u have won.It should be about democratic representation.

The three states Maharashtra , Gujarat and Goa has more representation than entire Southern India or Eastern India .

With such lop sided representatives how will it ensure fare funding (Bihar recieved less funding than Goa for years for instance ) or when international matches are allocated ?

Winning Ranji trophy should have no relevance in voting representation.

I am all for democratic representation, but that is not one state one vote. Our LS elections don't consider the same influence to an election from a small state such as Tripura compared to a large state such as Maharashtra. Tripura gets 2 constituencies while MH gets 48. How does one state one vote make it democratic representation. 

 

And by the way, MH, Guj makes for the entire West Zone. Vidarbha (in MH) is actually part of the Central Zone. Goa is part of South Zone. South Zone actually has more FC teams than West Zone. 

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, G_B_ said:

Exactly. Implement orders. Not make orders..

 

 

Arre baba, in reality they do MAKE orders. Implementing orders by the highest authority is, in reality, Supreme Court telling you what to do. In legal language, 'telling people what to do = making orders'. 

[gakgupta]

21 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

That is exactly the job of the Supreme Court. 
Or do you think when Indian politicians pass a bill into law, they come up with each and every exception clause, sub article b) part III by themselves ?
No. 
The process is, when a law is passed, it is passed. 
If someone finds an exception scenario to the law, they challenge it in Supreme court or petition supreme court to fix the law. Then the supreme court fixes the law and comes up with all the exception clauses they can think of. 

So i don't see what you mean SC should not frame the law- that is quite literally 90% of their job. The SC doesnt exist to be the final appeals court of the judicial system. That is NOT its job. Which is why nobody has the right to appeal the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has the right to REJECT hearing your appeal. The Job of the Supreme court, as in every other nation's Supreme Court, is primarily to be the safeguard of the constitutionality & legality of the laws being passed by the government. Most Supreme Courts worldwide spend over 80% of their hours of operation dealing with the above mentioned aspect and maybe 10% of the time it acts as 'final stop of appeals court'. 

 

 

Brother...Thanks for educating on this....I really didn't knew this......

I am a very emotional person and i know thru reliable sources that lot of corruption happens in Hyderabad cricket association and i always want someone to intervene and teach these guyz a strong lesson...

 

[Tibarn]

On 9/28/2016 at 11:57 PM, gakgupta said:

Do u get any cut from these BCCI Babu's loot...

Some good is happening and you don't want it to happen

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

I didn't check this thread and didn't have notifications on, so I didn't notice this gem. To answer your question, yes, I do get a share of the BCCI's "loot." Now, read what I actually wrote. I clearly stated that the court is overreaching; I did not say that I agree with what the BCCI does.  

On 9/28/2016 at 0:29 PM, Tibarn said:

BCCI should stand their ground. These judges are overreaching. 

The concepts of judicial restraint, activism, and overreach are basic, but crucial legal concepts. If you want a better definition, use Black’s Law Dictionary. Judicial activism and overreach have a distinction, but in reality it is a distinction without a difference. A court that indulges in activism will almost certainly get to the point of overreach. A simple way to think about it is that a court does things it doesn’t have an explicit constitutional right to or is against the spirit of the constitution they are supposed to protect, such as: encroaching on executive/legislative power, independent policy making, and proactively reinterpreting the law (usually based on political bias/personal whim). Judicial overreach is far more likely to turn India into Pakistan than something like questioning a court’s power grab. 

India’s constitution is based on the English system (UK and US). In that spirit, the judiciary is to: determine the constitutionality of a law, and interpret the scope when a need arises and there is ambiguity.   

Your wanting the BCCI to be clean should not be the basis of supporting either side in this case. Any case involving the apex court of the country can set a soft precedent (or worse a hard precedent) for future judicial behavior. 

The BCCI is an autonomous organization, meaning private entity. It is not a government body, owned by the citizens of India. It was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. This happened during the time of the Raj, I think in the late 20’s.  
Here is the law if you want to read it:

http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/actsbills/pdf/Societies_Registration_Act_1860.pdf

 

The law is basically for organizations that work for the benefit of society, such as health organizations. The BCCI is providing Indians with the public service of cricket, but it doesn’t have exclusive rights to represent India in cricket. However, the ICC recognizes the BCCI as the representative of Indian cricket. The government of India has not had an objection to this. If the government, or another private body, wants to, they can set up their own cricket organization and directly compete with it. The Judiciary interfering in a private body, even one that is not purely profit driven, is beyond dangerous.

 

Now let’s look at the BCCI. Yes, they are a shady organization, especially when it comes to the IPL (ie the Sunanda Pushkar murder), but in the quest to fix them, citizens should not blindly cede freedom to an unelected, unaccountable (in the case of India) body like the Supreme Court.

 

Let’s see some of their recommendations: 

https://lodhacommittee.wordpress.com/

Spoiler

— No BCCI office-bearer can be minister or government servant.

Why? Can a government servant or minister not effectively administer cricket? Do they know the benefits of having politicians being involved as office bearers.

— No BCCI office-bearer can have more than two consecutive terms.

Arbitrary time limit. A great administrator should be allowed to govern as long as possible.

— No BCCI office-bearer can hold office for more than 3 terms with the rider that there will be a cooling off after each term.

Interfering in something they don’t have the qualifications to understand.

— No BCCI office-bearer can hold two posts at the same time.

Pointless regulation.

— Only one association of each state will be full member and have the right to vote.

Discrimination based on an arbitrary criteria, namely state, which are unrelated to actual playing of cricket. The idea that Maharashtra or Gujarat are getting some unfair advantage is laughable.  

— Relegation of railways, services and universities as associate members. This makes them lose their voting rights.

Again, pointless. There is no reason to make “states” the basis of cricket!

— Separate governing bodies for IPL and BCCI.

Why? The IPL is a BCCI product.

— Limited autonomy for IPL governing council.

Cool, force someone to make another council, but limit their power?

— Constitution and establishment of a players’ association.

Why? Indian players are already much better off than any others. They really want to introduce a virtual union into a business that benefited both sides anyway without one.

— Formation of a steering committee headed by former home secretary G.K. Pillai with Mohinder Amarnath, Diana Eduljee and Anil Kumble as members.

Whatever

— Ethics officer to decide on conflict of interest.

   Appointed by? Conflict in whose opinion? Is it the court’s business? RTI already applies to organizations that register under TNSRA

— Age Limit of 70 for BCCI office bearers

Let’s introduce blatant age discrimination why don’t we. Apparently, after 70, people turn into vegetables.

— No ads between overs

We are the court, all knowing and unquestionable, you cannot make money.

— In no case President will hold post for more than 2 years

Good recommendation, I’m sure the court knows the proper length of time someone should be in charge of something, if only most of them would leave after 2 years…

—  Lodha panel wants BCCI to come under RTI Act

Cool. Apparently bodies registered under the TNSRA already were determined to come under RTI.  

 

I added short comments in bold, but you can see how many of these you like. Now imagine if the court put similar regulations on another business, hypothetically one that you own. Would you be okay with this? 

[gakgupta]

22 hours ago, Tibarn said:

I didn't check this thread and didn't have notifications on, so I didn't notice this gem. To answer your question, yes, I do get a share of the BCCI's "loot." Now, read what I actually wrote. I clearly stated that the court is overreaching; I did not say that I agree with what the BCCI does.  

The concepts of judicial restraint, activism, and overreach are basic, but crucial legal concepts. If you want a better definition, use Black’s Law Dictionary. Judicial activism and overreach have a distinction, but in reality it is a distinction without a difference. A court that indulges in activism will almost certainly get to the point of overreach. A simple way to think about it is that a court does things it doesn’t have an explicit constitutional right to or is against the spirit of the constitution they are supposed to protect, such as: encroaching on executive/legislative power, independent policy making, and proactively reinterpreting the law (usually based on political bias/personal whim). Judicial overreach is far more likely to turn India into Pakistan than something like questioning a court’s power grab. 

India’s constitution is based on the English system (UK and US). In that spirit, the judiciary is to: determine the constitutionality of a law, and interpret the scope when a need arises and there is ambiguity.   

Your wanting the BCCI to be clean should not be the basis of supporting either side in this case. Any case involving the apex court of the country can set a soft precedent (or worse a hard precedent) for future judicial behavior. 

The BCCI is an autonomous organization, meaning private entity. It is not a government body, owned by the citizens of India. It was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. This happened during the time of the Raj, I think in the late 20’s.  
Here is the law if you want to read it:

http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/actsbills/pdf/Societies_Registration_Act_1860.pdf

 

The law is basically for organizations that work for the benefit of society, such as health organizations. The BCCI is providing Indians with the public service of cricket, but it doesn’t have exclusive rights to represent India in cricket. However, the ICC recognizes the BCCI as the representative of Indian cricket. The government of India has not had an objection to this. If the government, or another private body, wants to, they can set up their own cricket organization and directly compete with it. The Judiciary interfering in a private body, even one that is not purely profit driven, is beyond dangerous.

 

Now let’s look at the BCCI. Yes, they are a shady organization, especially when it comes to the IPL (ie the Sunanda Pushkar murder), but in the quest to fix them, citizens should not blindly cede freedom to an unelected, unaccountable (in the case of India) body like the Supreme Court.

 

Let’s see some of their recommendations: 

https://lodhacommittee.wordpress.com/

  Reveal hidden contents

— No BCCI office-bearer can be minister or government servant.

 

Why? Can a government servant or minister not effectively administer cricket? Do they know the benefits of having politicians being involved as office bearers.

 

— No BCCI office-bearer can have more than two consecutive terms.

 

Arbitrary time limit. A great administrator should be allowed to govern as long as possible.

 

— No BCCI office-bearer can hold office for more than 3 terms with the rider that there will be a cooling off after each term.

 

Interfering in something they don’t have the qualifications to understand.

 

— No BCCI office-bearer can hold two posts at the same time.

 

Pointless regulation.

 

— Only one association of each state will be full member and have the right to vote.

 

Discrimination based on an arbitrary criteria, namely state, which are unrelated to actual playing of cricket. The idea that Maharashtra or Gujarat are getting some unfair advantage is laughable.  

 

— Relegation of railways, services and universities as associate members. This makes them lose their voting rights.

 

Again, pointless. There is no reason to make “states” the basis of cricket!

 

— Separate governing bodies for IPL and BCCI.

 

Why? The IPL is a BCCI product.

 

— Limited autonomy for IPL governing council.

 

Cool, force someone to make another council, but limit their power?

 

— Constitution and establishment of a players’ association.

 

Why? Indian players are already much better off than any others. They really want to introduce a virtual union into a business that benefited both sides anyway without one.

 

— Formation of a steering committee headed by former home secretary G.K. Pillai with Mohinder Amarnath, Diana Eduljee and Anil Kumble as members.

 

Whatever

 

— Ethics officer to decide on conflict of interest.

 

   Appointed by? Conflict in whose opinion? Is it the court’s business? RTI already applies to organizations that register under TNSRA

 

— Age Limit of 70 for BCCI office bearers

 

Let’s introduce blatant age discrimination why don’t we. Apparently, after 70, people turn into vegetables.

 

— No ads between overs

 

We are the court, all knowing and unquestionable, you cannot make money.

 

— In no case President will hold post for more than 2 years

 

Good recommendation, I’m sure the court knows the proper length of time someone should be in charge of something, if only most of them would leave after 2 years…

 

—  Lodha panel wants BCCI to come under RTI Act

 

Cool. Apparently bodies registered under the TNSRA already were determined to come under RTI.  

 

 

I added short comments in bold, but you can see how many of these you like. Now imagine if the court put similar regulations on another business, hypothetically one that you own. Would you be okay with this? 

I agree with most of the points except the bolded sentence......BCCI is not a private business...it is not owned by a single person.....

 

As per you, "The law is basically for organizations that work for the benefit of society, such as health organizations".

How much it is benefiting the society can be argued but it is over-strecthing the limits for making the money....For example,

1) TV Ads have reached a point where we cannot enjoy the match anymore....

2) In some of the tours, they are cutting down on test matches to accomodate more ODi's or T20's, so that they can make more money..

3)What has politicians have to do with sporting body? What has businessmen like srinivasan have to do with sporting body? There is lot of money and this whole organization is incredible corrupt....

Like this, i can go on.....

 

Now, you are comparing our law to US and UK.....On paper, it might be true bit it might not be effective for us.....I lived in USA for long enough to understand that these people (on average) are little more ethical as compared to us....also these people are law-abiding (may be because of fear)......And also govt takes utmost efforts to implement them....But for people like us, who shamelessly keep ethics aside for money, same law might not work.

 

You are telling that, law is out-reaching.....What other solution can you give??