SC bars Srinivasan, Niranjan Shah from attending SGM

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 24) has restrained N Srinivasan and Niranjan Shah from attending the BCCI Special General Meeting (SGM), scheduled for July 26, stating that the meeting shall only be attended only by office bearers of the state cricket associations.

"When I talk, CoA says I'm disrupting. If I don't, they have no complaints. I too have the freedom of expression," Srinivasan told the SC during the hearing.

In its fourth status report submitted on July 12, the SC-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) had conveyed to the apex court that the 'disqualified duo' had vested interests in disrupting the BCCI SGM, which was being called to look into the implementation of the Lodha reforms.

"The SGM held on June 26 was manifestly disruptive. Before the meeting, a substantial consensus has been arrived at as a result of mutual deliberations between CoA and various constituents members of BCCI," CoA's report had stated.

"The SGM on June 26 was attended by various persons who are disqualified from being office bearers of BCCI and/or their respective state/member associations including N Srinivasan (represented TNCA) and Niranjan Shah (Saurashtra CA) amongst others. Such disqualified persons have a vested interest in stalling implementation of judgement because if the judgement is implemented, such disqualified person will have to relinquish control over their respective state associations." it added.

Amicus curiae Gopal Subramanium and CoA counsel Parag Tripathi said Srinivasan was ousted from BCCI because of conflict of interest and had been disqualified from becoming an office-bearer. "The SC judgment was categorical about him. He could not have become an officebearer of TNCA. But he secured a back-door entry to the SGM by getting nominated. This is in violation of the spirit of the SC judgment," they said.

Srinivasan's counsel Kapil Sibal asked, "Can the CoA ask any cricket association not to nominate a particular person? Will that not violate the fundamental right of the association under Article 19 (c) of the Constitution? The SC judgment does not debar Srinivasan from getting nominated. Why is this targeting of a single individual nominated by TNCA? There are 18 associations in BCCI. Is the CoA trying to tell Supreme Court that Srinivasan can influence all 18 to impede implementation of reforms? But let me tell you candidly, there are serious problems in implementing the SC judgment directing the implementation of the reforms."

Though the bench decided to go by CoA's view and barred state units from sending anyone other than an office bearers to the SGM, Srinivasan's plan to point out difficulties in implementing the Lodha panel recommendations had its impact. The bench said, "The (July 18) judgment has to be modified. But till then, whatever has to be implemented must be done. We suggest you hold the SGM to act on the Lodha recommendations. Come back to us and tell which of the recommendations can be implemented and those which cannot be. All cricket associations must cooperate. Debate on objections but do not stall SGM."

Regarding change in stance on size of the selection panel and the one-state, one-vote policy

A little over a year since accepting majority of the Lodha reforms, the Supreme Court said that it was ready to reconsider the size of the selection panel and the one-state, one-vote policy, which has received the strongest opposition from within the BCCI.

"One State One Vote policy is not favourable to this country," the SC bench which is monitioring the implementation of Lodha reforms, said.

"All concerned (BCCI and state associations) shall implement the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee Report as far as practicable, barring the issues which have been raised pertaining to membership, number of members of the selection committee, concept of associate membership, etc," the court added.

"The purpose is to implement the report as far as practicable and, thereafter, it shall be debated as to how the scheme of things can be considered so that the cricket, the 'gentleman's game', remains nearly perfect."

Remembering Rajinder Goel and Padmakar Shivalkar, two very successful Ranji Trophy campaigners who could not play Test matches because of the presence of the spin quartet - Bishan Singh Bedi, B S Chandrasekhar, E A S Prasanna and S Venkataraghavan - the bench said prima facie it would be unproductive to restrict selectors to only Test players.

"Someone may have just played one or two Test matches and another could have played domestic cricket for years with great success. Will it be justified to keep out the latter from the panel of selectors?" it asked. "One-state one-vote may not be a good idea for the country, where many associations historically have played a significant role and now find themselves out of cricket administration," the bench further added.

The first sign of the turnaround from the apex court came 10 days ago in a hearing, when the bench seemingly provided a lifeline for the likes of Railways, Association of India Universities, National Cricket Club and Cricket Club of India to regain their full membership. As per the reforms suggested by the Lodha panel, the aforementioned bodies would been relegated to being associate members and will not hold any7 voting rights. As for states like Maharashtra and Gujarat, full membership and voting rights was to be used on rotation basis.

"Historically, the contribution of Railways in development of cricket and other sports have been significant. Can Railways be relegated to associate member of BCCI? Some kind of formula has to be evolved so that no body or association which had been historically involved in the development of cricket in India are deprived of full membership. One cannot possibly equate small states with these important bodies," the bench had said on July 14.

**Updated at 7 AM, July 25, to include excerpts of the statements presented during the hearing