Why BCCI needs minsters?

The Supreme Court of India has emphasised that the restrictions suggested by the Lodha Committee on cricket administrators should not prevent former cricketers or government ministers from serving and promoting the sport.

The Supreme Court-appointed Lodha Committee had recommended that individuals over 70 years of age and ministers serving with the central or state governments should not be allowed to hold office in the Indian cricket board (BCCI) or its constituent state units.

Mumbai Cricket Association’s (MCA) senior counsel BH Marlapalle informed the Supreme Court that the MCA was opposed to the restrictions on cricket administrators. “Why don’t you have an advisory board of politicians and ministers if you want to benefit from their administrative experience?” a Bench comprising Justices TS Thakur and FMI Kalifulla asked Marlapalle. The Bench observed that while eminent players like Sunil Gavaskar could coach talented young players, the government ministers could offer their administrative expertise to the BCCI and its state units if they had “genuine love for the game”.

The MCA, however, said that it would be very difficult to hold cricket matches without having ministers as administrators as several clearances were required from the local government authorities to organise cricket events. “Is it a happy situation that matches can’t be held without political patronage?” the Bench commented at this.

“Certainly not, but that is the ground reality,” the MCA counsel said, prompting the Bench to remark: “The system should work without any political clout.”

Opposing the restriction of 70 years suggested by the Lodha Committee, the MCA said that Gavaskar would soon be 70 (he will turn 70 in July 2019, in fact) and it would not be advisable to keep such greats away from the game. Unconvinced, the Bench said great players over the age of 70 could continue to render their services to cricket in several other ways.

Arguing for the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA), senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the BCCI should not be blamed for the non-development of cricket in the northe astern states or states such as Bihar. The game had evolved more in some states due to historical reasons, he said. It did not become popular in the northeast due to poor connectivity by road, rail or air, and the lack of infrastructure and facilities such as schools and clubs, for which the BCCI should not be blamed, Sibal said. Further, the people of the northeast had greater interest in boxing and football. The BCCI had inherited its cricket legacy from the British rulers, who had popularised the sport in some areas, Sibal pleaded.

The Bench, however, said the Supreme Court had set up the Justice RM Lodha panel to infuse transparency, objectivity and credibility into the cricket administration; it said that since the BCCI and its state units were discharging a public function, they could in no way say that the judiciary should stay away from the game.

The arguments would continue on April 18.