Supreme Court slams BCCI for resisting reforms

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 8) criticised the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for its stand that any judicial intervention in its day-to-day operations would undermine the board's autonomy. The apex court further added that the BCCI was resisting proposals to reform the board in order to make its operations more "transparent and visible".

"You are discharging public function... how best your functioning can be improved? It has to be transparent and visible .. the way you are doing (discharging your function) and how you are doing," a bench consisting of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice F M I Kalifulla said.

After hearing arguments made by KK Venugopal, BCCI's counsel and senior advocate, the bench said: "What we understand is that you are suggesting that I am answerable to Registrar of Societies. I will be accountable only to Registrar of the Society. I will be amenable to criminal law, but I will not reform. Don't ask me to reform. Is it possible?"

The apex court also pulled up the BCCI for not doing enough to control the menace of match-fixing and betting. "What have you done? We have seen the allegations of match-fixing and betting. You have no control over these. However, you give money in crores. The Lodha committee has said something. It has been said to make the functioning more transparent and visible and the effort is to reform the BCCI.

"You are dealing with hundreds of crores of rupees. Do you say that you have complete immunity over it and you can't be questioned? Do you say that you can't be questioned how you spend hundreds of crores of rupees, if not thousands that you collect from the public. Can we record that statement," the bench observed.

The bench also made it clear that they were unhappy with BCCI's viewpoint that as the board is an autonomous body, it can't accommodate a representative of CAG as recommended by the Justice R M Lodha Panel. The board counsel argued that it would violate International Cricket Council's (ICC) rules and regulations as it would be noted as governmental intervention.

"How the presence of a government nominee or CAG would violate ICC rules and attract de-recognition? You are opposing the nominee of the CAG on the board as it would make you vulnerable to de-recognition, but you are also advocating involvement of ministers and bureaucrats. Does it not create government influence or presence," the bench asked Venugopal.

The bench observed that the BCCI should restore the faith among cricket fans by using the money in their Trust for the development of the game. "The money that you have is in your Trust. Are you not accountable to the beneficiaries? This money is in trust with you for whose benefit? It is for the benefit of the people who watch matches? Are you not accountable to them?"

On their part, BCCI replied by saying that instead of following all the proposals, "let us see whether there is another way" through which corrective measures can be implemented.

Venugopal said that the board was executing the Lodha Committee suggestions, but would not undertake some of those recommendations, in lieu of which the BCCI was protected by Article 19(1)(c). "We are now going to appoint a consultant for better management of our affairs," Venugopal said, while emphasising on the point that any attempt by the apex court to intervene would violate Article 19(1) (c) on fundamental right to start associations.

In fact, the BCCI is against the Lodha Committee's proposals that would put a limit on maximum of two terms for the board's administrators, one state-one vote, presence of a CAG nominee on the board and 65 years being fixed as the age limit for retirement of BCCI's office-bearers.

On the other hand, advocate Ashok Desai, arguing on behalf of Punjab Cricket Association (PCA), said to the court that there can't be uniform rules for all associations or an age limit for office-bearers. As of now, the PCA has fixed the age limit at 70 years. At this, the bench replied, "should there be an upper age limit at all? What is the age at which players retire?"

The next hearing will take place on April 12.