Supreme Court and BCCI has completely shown a new absurdity in the procedures of the formation of committee for administration. The two-member panel designated by the Supreme Court that was assigned to form the Committee of Administrators to run BCCI, on Friday suggested nine names for the job. However, the Supreme court said that nine people were too many to run the Board of Control for Cricket in India. The Court made known that, some former cricketers were also part of the administration list without revealing the names.
The verdict said that people who have a cumulative tenure of 18 years in the BCCI and state units are eligible to be elected as office bearers subject to a cooling off period was welcomed by several senior officials including those, whose administrative careers got a lease of life.
“Obviously, the rectification of the cumulative period to earlier 18 years is a welcome move. The BCCI has never opposed to the Lodha reforms. We only had issues regarding age cap of 70 years, one state one vote and the cooling off period. How can you give Nagaland voting right and not have 41-time Ranji champions Mumbai as a voter,” Saurashtra veteran Shah told PTI even though his career in BCCI is over.
Though the names were not revealed, some of them have to be removed from the list. The Supreme Court also made known it will appoint administrators for the BCCI on January 24 from list of persons given by amicus curiae in the regard.
The top court also questioned the amicus curiae in the BCCI case Gopal Subramaniam and Anil Divan as to why the list of nine names submitted consisted of people over the age of 70 and stated that ongoing international matches should not face any discrepancies as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is there to run the BCCI.
The Supreme Court jumped down throat at the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and said its constitution is incapable of attaining the values of transparency, objectivity and accountability, that can only happen by completely changing course and structure of it.
“The inherent constitution of BCCI is such that it is highly incapable of achieving the values of transparency, objectivity and accountability that without changing its structure it can’t be done so,” a bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice FMI Kalifulla said.
The utterance were made after senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who was appointed as amicus curiae by the apex court to abet it on the issue, said if the constitution of BCCI forbids to 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.
The Supreme Court was initially about to list out the administrators on Thursday but thereafter listed to Friday.
BCCI is currently devoid of a president and secretary. This happens out of the blue because on 2nd January Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke were sacked by the top court.
Hereabout it’s seen that the relationship of BCCI with that of Supreme Court is not much in the warmth of affection instead the opposite.
Apart from the removal of Thakur and Shirke from the positionship of the council, the court also issued show cause notices as questioning why contempt and perjury proceedings not be initiated against Thakur. According to a July 18 order by the apex court, most BCCI office bearers were not eligible to carry on and the RM Lodha panel had asked the court to chop them off.
