SC allows BCCI to propose names for interim committee

SC allows BCCI to propose names for interim committee In a fresh development, the Supreme Court, which was to announce the list of administrators to run the functioning of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on Tuesday (January 24), has now allowed the beleaguered cricket body, and government-run state cricket associations, to recommend names of eligible candidates in a sealed

envelope. The apex court reiterated that the names suggested by the board representatives over 70 years of age won't be taken into consideration. The Supreme Court also asked the cricket board to suggest names of three eligible candidates from which it will pick one to represent BCCI at the next International Cricket Council (ICC) board meeting.

The bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra has asked the cricket board to submit its names in a sealed envelope by Friday (January 27), while the next hearing has been scheduled for January 30. The BCCI, who are currently unrepresented at the ICC, await this decision in order to take part in the next round of the global body meetings scheduled from February 2. In addition to this, the bench, which also comprised of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, made it clear that the names to be recommended for appointment in the committee and the representative for the ICC meet should be in accordance with the judgement passed by the court earlier.

Mukul Rohatgi, the Attorney General of India (AGI), argued that the court must delay the announcement of the administrators by two weeks, taking into consideration the names to be suggested by the Indian cricket board. Reacting on the same, the apex court questioned his absence when the bench had passed its order on July 18.

On Friday (January 20) afternoon, 18 days after removing president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke from their respective positions, the apex court was due to announce the appointment of a set of interim administrators who will run BCCI until fresh elections were held. Gopal Subramanium, the amicus curiae in the BCCI versus Lodha Panel case, submitted a sealed envelope with the list of nine potential interim administrators for the Indian cricket board. However, the Supreme Court bench expressed restraint in revealing the names of administrators and had delayed it till the next hearing on January 24.

According to reports, the list handed in by Subramanium and senior advocate Anil Diwan contained people who are aged over 70, thereby in direct breach of a key Lodha recommendation.

In what was a surprise intervention, the AGI sought a review of the Supreme Court judgement dated July 18, which ratified a majority of the Lodha panel's proposals. Rohatgi, who represents Railways, Services and Universities, said the court order directing BCCI to implement the sweeping reforms also affected the government of India.

Rohatgi and the Indian government's involvement came in response to the Lodha recommendation which downgraded the aforementioned three bodies to associate member status as a part of its one-state-one-vote recommendation, thereby depriving them of voting privileges.

"Railways, Services, Associations of Universities, are three members of BCCI's [current] 30 full members. They've had voting rights in the last fifty years, have bodies in cricket, give jobs, have stadiums, but now have been downgraded. Full membership has been taken away, their value is being taken away," Rohatgi had told the media after January 20 hearing.

The apex court also came out clear on the tenure period for administrators. According to the January 20 order, the nine-year tenure would apply individually for an administrator at the state association and the BCCI levels. There would, however, mandatorily, be a cooling off period after every three years at the office.

The interpretation of this order in the January 3 verdict was subject of much confusion with Amitabh Choudhury, the former joint secretary of the BCCI, being barred from participating in a selection meeting because of his apparent breach of the verdict.

On that occasion, the confusion over Choudhury's participation stemmed from the apparent obscurity in the nine-year tenure cap recommendation. The Jharkhand administrator has spent nine years in the state association but not in BCCI, something that Rahul Johri, the BCCI Chief Executive, sought to clarify with the Lodha committee before excluding Choudhury from the meet.