Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the first time in the BCCI-Lodha Committee spat, asked the Supreme Court on Friday, “Why can’t the Railway Minister become an office-bearer?”
He was representing Indian Railways, the armed forces and the association of Indian universities before a Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra.
“We are not shying away from the legal issues. They are interesting. We will have a debate,” Justice Misra said.
The effort to wind the clock back on the litigation came even as amicus curiae and senior advocate Gopal Subramanium and senior advocate Anil Divan gave a list of nine ‘suitable persons’ who can be appointed into the Committee of Administrators to run the BCCI on a daily basis.
On January 2, the Supreme Court Bench led by then Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur had sought the committee to be formed to administer the BCCI for the time being after sacking both BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke.
Justice Misra indicated that the committee cannot hold nine persons and should be smaller. The court said it would consult the list and get back on January 24, the next date of the hearing.
When the court asked about the new CEO who is running daily affairs now for the BCCI, Mr. Sibal said “we cannot put everything on the CEO’s shoulders.” He submitted that the court should allow the member cricket associations to suggest names for the committee of administrators.
“On February 2 and 3, ICC is going to meet. BCCI contributes 70 percent of ICC revenue. There will be negotiations worth Rs. 8000 crore annually... Now who is going to negotiate for BCCI? Everybody who was experienced and who had background have been thrown out... Some people have been disqualified for ‘cooling-off periods’, some have been thrown out for being 70 years old...” Mr. Sibal submitted.
Mr. Subramanium countered that the State associations were given ample opportunities to air their grievances before the July 18 judgment was pronounced and the subsequent January 2 order was passed.
The Supreme Court had already dismissed the review petitions and curative petitions of the BCCI. It has now to comply with the SC directions.
“My friend [pointing to Mr. Sibal] had previously on three occasions given this court his assurance that he would implement the orders of the Supreme Court. Why had he changed his version now?” Mr. Subramanium asked.
“I had only said I would try and persuade the members to accept the Lodha reforms. You [Mr. Subramanium] know the English language better than me,” Mr. Sibal retorted.
Asking the senior lawyers to hold their peace, Justice Misra said the names for the committee would be thoroughly discussed, and only then appointments made.
“This committee is clearly ad hoc. Eventually an election has to be held in the BCCI,” Justice Misra remarked.
“There is no reference to any election in the orders. Anyway, what election will that be when the members of the electoral college have been changed?” Mr. Sibal asked the court.
The hearing further saw the court modify its January 2 order to clarify that those office-bearers who have spent a cumulative period of nine years, either in the BCCI or any of the State associations, would be disqualified from holding office.
The committee of administrators, once appointed by an order of the Supreme Court, would manage the affairs of the BCCI.
The Supreme Court-appointed Justice R.M. Lodha Committee would take on the task of guiding the policy of the cricket body. The administrators would be the pointsmen for ushering in the Lodha panel’s recommendations of transparency and accountability in the cricket administration.
In its January 2 order, the court had endorsed the Justice Lodha panel recommendation to oust BCCI office-bearers and administrators of affiliated State associations who are above 70, who are insolvent, government ministers and servants, office-bearers of other sports and athletic associations, those who have already enjoyed a cumulative period of nine years at the BCCI helm and those charged with criminal offences.
Administrators who do not fall under any of these categories of disqualification were given a deadline of four weeks to fall in line with the Lodha reforms.
