Justice (retd) R.M. Lodha (centre) along with committee members Justice (retd) Ashok Bhan (right) and Justice (retd) R.V. Raveendran show the copy of their report at a press conference in New Delhi on Monday. — Bunny Smith
Justice (retd) R.M. Lodha (centre) along with committee members Justice (retd) Ashok Bhan (right) and Justice (retd) R.V. Raveendran show the copy of their report at a press conference in New Delhi on Monday. — Bunny Smith
The Supreme Court-appointed panel on Monday called for a severe shake-up in the country’s cricket administration, proposing extensive changes to run the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Among the many recommendations, the Justice Lodha Committee called for bringing the scandal-hit board under the Right to Information Act and said gambling should be made legal.
The panel also recommended barring politicians from the board and introducing time limits on holding office. Other key changes suggested include formation of a players’ association to be given highest representation at the board, limited autonomy for the Indian Premier League governing council and the appointment of three independent officials to look into contentious areas within the BCCI — conflict of interest, dispute resolution and election processes.
Lodha, who submitted a 159-page report to the Supreme Court, said, “First thing is about the structure and the constitution. As you know, presently the BCCI has 34 members. Some of these members do not have any territory like Services, Railways etc. Some of them do not play tournaments. Some of the states have multiple members like Maharashtra has three, Gujarat has three.
“With the interactions we had, except few it was broadly represented to us that one state as a unit of representation in the BCCI is a very fair idea.
“As regards the office bearers of the BCCI — president, vice-president, secretary, joint secretary and treasurer — certain eligibility criteria have been fixed. He must be an Indian, he must not be above age of 70, he must not be insolvent, he must not be a minister or government servant, and who has not held office in the BCCI for a cumulative period for nine years,” said Justice Lodha, in what is likely to have serious implications in BCCI’s governance.
The recommendations, if made binding by the Supreme Court, could mean the end of the road in sport administration for Mumbai Cricket Association president and politician Sharad Pawar, and current BCCI head Shashank Manohar could lose his voting rights and N. Srinivasan (70) would be ineligible on tenure as well as age consideration.
Justice Lodha added that each office bearer will have tenure of three years and no office bearer can hold the office for more than three terms with the rider that there will be a cooling off after each term.
Besides, no person can simultaneously be an office-bearer of the BCCI and also a state association. This recommendation can affect current BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur, who also heads the Himachal Pradesh CA. The others include BCCI joint secretary Amitabh Chaudhary (also head of Jharkhand) and Treasurer, Aniruddh Chaudhary (Haryana CA secretary) and might have to give up one of the two posts.
The panel also suggested a separate executive body for the IPL and the appointment of an independent ombudsman and ethics officer to address conflicts of interest. The ombudsman’s role would involve presiding over internal disputes resolution mechanism, and address disputes between the board and its members or associates; breaches by administrators, players, team officials, and grievances concerning access to stadia, manipulation in ticket distribution.
“The governing council of the IPL will be entitled to take all decisions concerning IPL, which includes the decision relating to financial matters. However, the governing council will be answerable to the general body of BCCI. So limited autonomy is proposed for the IPL GC,” the panel said.
“We have recommended uniformity in the structure and constitution of state associations, like the associations must not have office for life, or office for more than nine years... separation of social and cricket activities in the state associations, no proxy voting. Their accounts must be audited by the BCCI to maintain transparency in functioning. They must comply with all the directives of the BCCI. Any breach of the directives by state associations would disentitle them from the grant of the subsidy and other grants from the BCCI,” the panel said.
