Feed Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 The Supreme Court, in a significant reprieve to BCCI and state office bearers, has allowed them to serve separate nine-year terms at central and state level View the full article
sandeep Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 what is this - 2 aunties haggling over the price of sabzi? Shouldn't the Supreme Court and Lodha Commission have thought through all the new rules and been crystal clear about what the new rules are to be. Shows the ad-hocism and poor due diligence of the Lodha recommendations. I have got no love for the BCCI old guard - but Lodha commission were a bunch of idiots - a lot like that Anna Hazare movement - we want revolution - corruption hatao - after that, what should be done, how to administer - we know eff all. mishra and G_B_ 2
Feed Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 The attorney general of India has asked the Supreme Court to revoke its order that required the BCCI to implement a two specific recommendations of the Lodha Committee View the full article
Malcolm Merlyn Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 Quote They were full members with voting rights. That status has been downgraded to associate members without voting rights," Rohatgi told ESPNcricinfo. "How could the Supreme Court downgrade our full membership in BCCI without issuing notice to us first?" Rohatgi told the court the three organisations had been big contributors to Indian cricket - employing many players - and so the court should reconsider its decision. "What right does the apex court have to downgrade them as BCCI (full) members?" he asked the three-judge bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud. Rohatgi also challenged the Lodha Committee recommendation that said no serving minister or civil servant could be an office-bearer of the BCCI or state association. ""Why can't the Railway minister become an office-bearer?" Rohatgi asked. "I am asking for a recall of your orders. Lodha Committee was appointed by this court to punish those found guilty in the IPL match-fixing," Rohatgi said according to the Hindu. "Then you told them to reform cricket ... when has the court become a reformist body?" Quote Can a panel of judges oversee the functioning of a private trust or a company? BCCI is a trust registered under a Tamil Nadu law. Similarly, state cricket associations are either trusts or companies,” Rohatgi argued before the bench. ATTORNEY JOURNAL OF INDIA MUKUL ROHATGI BEFORE SUPREME COURT Ironhide and Mystique_Myth 2
Malcolm Merlyn Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 @BeautifulGame @Trichromatic @Forever Indian @beetle
Ironhide Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 18 years Total (Domestic+National) is a decent amount of time, good ruling/clarification from Supreme Court. Anurag Thakur can now make a comeback at the National level as he completed only 2-3 years at National level. People just love to bag on Srini and Anurag but the fact is that both these guys love cricket and are patriotic Indians who won't let India be pushed around and marginalised unlike the Great snake Shahsank Manohar. Rasgulla 1
Forever Indian Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) "Rohatgi also said he had met former BCCI president Anurag Thakur, who had been removed from office by a Supreme Court order on January 2, earlier this week but said they were meeting as friends and did not discuss the BCCI-Lodha case. " : Source - The ESPNCricinfo Article above. Well, a ruling party (BJP) MP meeting with the Attorney General as "Friends" and what else do you expect the Attorney General to do? This can happen only in India, where politics influences the Judicial system to recall judgements as per their convenience. I am actually surprised this did not happen before the SC judgement was passed. Edited January 20, 2017 by Forever Indian
Forever Indian Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 "Rohatgi also said he had met former BCCI president Anurag Thakur, who had been removed from office by a Supreme Court order on January 2, earlier this week but said they were meeting as friends and did not discuss the BCCI-Lodha case. " : Source - The ESPNCricinfo Article: http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/1078673.html?CMP=OTC-RSS Well, a ruling party (BJP) MP meeting with the Attorney General as "Friends" and what else do you expect the Attorney General to do? This can happen only in India, where politics influences the Judicial system to recall judgements as per their convenience. I am actually surprised this did not happen before the SC judgement was passed.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 "Rohatgi also said he had met former BCCI president Anurag Thakur, who had been removed from office by a Supreme Court order on January 2, earlier this week but said they were meeting as friends and did not discuss the BCCI-Lodha case. " : Source - The ESPNCricinfo Article: http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/1078673.html?CMP=OTC-RSS Well, a ruling party (BJP) MP meeting with the Attorney General as "Friends" and what else do you expect the Attorney General to do? This can happen only in India, where politics influences the Judicial system to recall judgements as per their convenience. I am actually surprised this did not happen before the SC judgement was passed. So ruling party MP cant meet its AG?Is there a rule on this?The govt has 3 members in BCCI and all 3 will lose their vote so Govt should not defend its rights?
Forever Indian Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: So ruling party MP cant meet its AG?Is there a rule on this?The govt has 3 members in BCCI and all 3 will lose their vote so Govt should not defend its rights? Yeah, let all criminal and civil case judgements against ruling party MPs also follow the same - Ask the Supreme Court to change it's judgement because it's not of their interest. Even better scrap the SC and have the ruling party deal with cases as judges. Funny thing is this case started off for possible conflict of interest and we are seeing Conflict of Interest right in action here through our politicians. Edited January 20, 2017 by Forever Indian
Malcolm Merlyn Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, Forever Indian said: Yeah, let all criminal and civil case judgements against ruling party MPs also follow the same - Ask the Supreme Court to change it's judgement because it not of their interest. Even better scrap the SC and have the ruling party deal with cases as judges. Funny thing is this case started off for possible conflict of interest and we are seeing Conflict of Interest right in action here through our politicians. This isnt about any case againist Anurag Thakur.This is about the govt defending its rights againist the SC.The Railways/Services/Universities are GOI controlled and the GOI is defending these 3 members. The SC should have limited itself to do the case that was brought before it and not try to become a reforming body,which isnt the job of a court. Ironhide and msplash9 2
Forever Indian Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: This isnt about any case againist Anurag Thakur.This is about the govt defending its rights againist the SC.The Railways/Services/Universities are GOI controlled and the GOI is defending these 3 members. The SC should have limited itself to do the case that was brought before it and not try to become a reforming body,which isnt the job of a court. Don't think it is just to defend those 3 affiliate bodies. We will soon see Anurag Thakur back as the BCCI President after the revised judgement, mark my words. Corruption is and and will always be rife in Indian politics. Happy days ahead as usual!
Malcolm Merlyn Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, Forever Indian said: Don't think it is just to defend those 3 affiliate bodies. We will soon see Anurag Thakur back as the BCCI President after the revised judgement, mark my words. Corruption is and and will always be rife in Indian politics. Happy days ahead as usual! If revised judgement paves way for anyone to return it will.The AG raised pertinent points to why the order needs to be recalled.
Forever Indian Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: If revised judgement paves way for anyone to return it will.The AG raised pertinent points to why the order needs to be recalled. My previous points still stand
Malcolm Merlyn Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, Forever Indian said: My previous points still stand So does the points of the AG.
maniac Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 No Bishen Singh Bedi please....our LOI eam will go back to the 90's or may be even to the 60's.
sandeep Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Ram Guha as Selector? Is he going to quiz players on their grammer and knowledge of statistics from the 50s before selecting them? WTF is this BS. And Bedi is a first class provocateur who will not place Team interests before himself. He will follow in the footsteps of that desi umpire who gave Maninder Singh out legbefore incorrectly - because he wanted his name in the history books for a tied test. G_B_ 1
surajmal Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 I am repeating myself but majority of Indians should lose their citizenship. Each and everyone, a total noob. Pick up a civics book idiots.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now