Fri. Oct 7th, 2022

The most recent Supreme Court order gives cricket administrators an uninterrupted combined tenure of 12 years with state-run units as well as the BCCI.

 

Former Chief of the Supreme Court of India R M Lodha who chaired an appointed Supreme Court panel that suggested a number of changes within Indian cricket administration in the past six years He described the controversial cooling-off clause of the BCCI constitution as an “snow mountain” that cricket officials must negotiate with “waiting for the weather to change”.

In an interview with Digi Mexl, on the third of this week following the decision of an order by the Supreme Court allowed the BCCI to alter the cooling-off time for office bearers of the board, Justice Lodha said: “For cricket officials, the cooling-off period was kind of like a snowy mountain, which they consider difficult to traverse and so they expect the weather to improve. This is what has been since the year 2016 in 2018, 2018 and, now 2022.”

In the aftermath of the IPL spot-fixing scandal that occurred in 2013 and subsequent conflict-of-interest accusations against the cricket officials and BCCI officials, the Supreme Court, based on the Lodha Committee report, had issued an order in 2016 that required BCCI officials to be given an unassailable period (of the duration of three years) and then a cooling-off time of 3 years.

The Indian Board continuing to investigate the case The latest Supreme Court order gives cricket administrators an unbroken period of 12 years with states units and in the BCCI.

When asked about the most recent order, Justice Lodha said the Supreme Court in its “wisdom had done what was right” because it may have concluded the “earlier orders fundamentally erroneous” and “thought that continuity of office-bearers was more important than the finality of the judgment”.

But, he added: “If you want to use the concept of continuity, why 12 years? If continuity is the primary factor and overrides all else, so why should you fix cooling-off all. What is the reason for 6, 9 or 12 years? …,” the man said.

Outlining the reasons the committee wanted cricket officials to break off at the end of every three years He said “Our concept of a cooling-off duration was built on two aspects that would prevent the development of a monopoly as well as it will bring fresh life into the administration. Cooling-off is an important element of the governance system to eliminate the possibility of creating the dominance. If you grant a lengthy time period, it’s certain to create the appearance of a monopoly for certain individuals. This is based on the well-established principle of governance that applies to every field which includes sports as one of them.”

Lodha was also able to point out that the report of his committee was considered “threadbare” by the Supreme Court. “Our report was deemed to be valid by The Supreme Court passed its first decision on July 18th, 2016, and accepted the concept and formalized the cooling-off clause was completed. It’s not like we had a problem or the report was insincere. At the initial hearing, they considered our report as bare and also accepted this clause. Then, it was modified in the September 9, 2018 order. Perhaps, they are now thinking it’s right to alter once more,” he said.

The former CJI was also vocal about the reasons why the apex court was required the authority to interfere in Cricket disputes.

In the wake of the investigation by Justice (retired) Mukul Mudgal investigation regarding the 2013 scandal The Supreme Court appointed the Lodha Committee to recommend modifications to the structure that could ensure checks and balances in the efficient functioning of cricket across the country. The investigation into the spot-fixing trial and court proceedings indicated that conflicts of interest was the heart of many problems within the BCCI as one of the suspects of the spot-fixing scandal was Gurunath Meiyappan, the son-in-law of BCCI former employee as well as IPL Franchise the owner N Srinivasan.

“One must take a look at the circumstances of how it was the Supreme Court interfered in the BCCI’s business. It was clear and clear that the same individuals were running for office again and again. In addition, there were many various other activities going on about that the court could not ignore. We were asked to examine the constitution and the structure. After speaking with a lot of people and observing their opinions, we discovered that there were a number of fundamental issues with good governance. There was a need to end the monopoly held by the few that are in control,” Lodha said.

Since then, it has been the case that the Indian Board has consistently fought the clause. Based on the BCCI request that has been considered by a variety of Supreme Court panels, the clause was amended in 2018 to grant BCCI office bearers two termswhich totals six years, with the possibility of a period in a state unitin the time before the cooling-off phase begins.

In the wake of Indian Board continuing to pursue the matter The latest Supreme Court order gives cricket administrators an uninterrupted period of 12 years with state-run units as well as the BCCI.

When asked about the most recent order, Justice Lodha said the Supreme Court in its “wisdom had done what was right” in the sense that it could have concluded that “earlier orders fundamentally erroneous” and “thought that continuity of office-bearers was more important than the finality of the judgment”.

But, he added: “If you want to apply the principle of continuity, why 12 years? If continuity is the most important element and is the only thing that matters, and everything else, then why do you need to fix cooling-off at all. Why 6-9 or 12 years? …,” the man said.

Outlining the reasons his committee wanted cricketers to rest each three-year period He said “Our concept of a cooling-off time frame was founded on two aspects that it could end the development of monopolies and will bring fresh blood into the administration. Cooling off is an essential element of the governance structure that helps stop the creation of an unsustainable monopoly. If you grant a lengthy duration, it will be likely to result in an monopoly that favors certain individuals. It is based upon a widely accepted concept of governance that applies to every field which includes sports as one of them.”

Lodha added that the report of his committee was considered “threadbare” by the Supreme Court. “Our report was deemed to be valid by it was confirmed that the Supreme Court passed its first order on the 18th of July 2016, and accepted the concept and formalized the cooling-off clause took place. It’s not like we weren’t on the right track or that our report was a joke. In the initial hearing the panel accepted our report in its entirety and also approved the clause. Then, it was modified in the September 9, 2018 order. Perhaps, they are now thinking it’s time to make changes once more,” he said.

In the wake of the investigation by Justice (retired) Mukul Mudgal inquiry regarding the 2013 scandal The Supreme Court appointed the Lodha Committee to propose reforms to the structure of the BCCI that will create checks and balances to ensure the operation of cricket in the country. The spot-fixing investigation case as well as court proceedings revealed that conflicts of interests was at the source of many of the issues within the BCCI as one of the suspects of the spot-fixing scandal was Gurunath Meiyappan, the son-in-law of BCCI former employee as well as IPL Franchise the owner N Srinivasan.

“One must take a look at the circumstances that it was the Supreme Court interfered in the BCCI’s business. It was evident and evident that the same individuals were running for office again and again. There were also other events going on about that the court could not ignore. We were asked to examine the constitution and the structure. After having a number of meetings we learned that there were some fundamental concerns about good governance. There was a demand to end the monopoly of the few who are in charge,” Lodha said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.