Supreme Court clears ambiguity on nine-year cap rule

The Supreme Court clarified on Friday that office-bearers can hold separate terms of nine years each at a state association and the BCCI. This means that the BCCI's existing office-bearers - the joint-secretary, treasurer and five vice-presidents - could retain their posts.

There has been some confusion over the nine-year tenure cap since the time the Lodha Committee submitted its recommendations, and some state associations had sought clarity on the matter. There was further ambiguity when the court modified its January 2 order, which had said: "A person shall be disqualified from being an Office-Bearer if he or she has been an Office-Bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years." On January 3, the court tweaked that to say: "Has been an Office-Bearer of the BCCI or a State Association for a cumulative period of 9 years."

However, on January 20, the court said that its January 3 modification was likely "to create some ambiguity" and hence in a fresh clarification said an administrator would be disqualified if he "has been an office bearer of the BCCI for nine years or a State Association for the same period." While the ruling was interpreted by BCCI's office-bearers as an indication that they could continue for nine years separately at BCCI and their respective states, the CoA thought otherwise. It pointed out that it would stick to the Lodha Committee's interpretation of the court's order until a new directive was issued by the Supreme Court.

On Friday, though, the Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Dipak Mishra, put the doubts of state associations to rest and said the order passed on January 20 was "clear as a cloudless sky".

"When the matter was taken up on 20th January, 2017, a submission was advanced that that clause is likely to create some kind of ambiguity and, accordingly, this Court further stated as follows: 'has been an office bearer of the BCCI for nine years or a State Association for the same period'," the bench said.

"What has been meant by the clarificatory order is that, if an office bearer has completed nine years in any post in the BCCI, he shall stand disqualified to become an office bearer of the BCCI. Similarly, if a person holds the post of office bearer in any capacity for any State Association for nine years, he shall stand disqualified for contesting or holding any post or office of the State Association. To avoid any kind of maze, we proceed to state by giving an example. If a person has held the post of office bearer in respect of a State Association for a period of nine years, he will not be disqualified to contest for the post of office bearer of the BCCI."

The original recommendation regarding eligibility, approved by the Supreme Court on July 18 last year, had made it possible for an individual to serve nine years each at the BCCI and a state association.

A BCCI office-bearer's cooling-off period could have been a three-year term at their state association, after which they could once again contest an election for a BCCI position. And if they won the BCCI post, the ensuing three-year term would serve as their cooling-off period from holding office at state level. An individual could therefore have spent 18 years in Indian cricket administration between the BCCI and his state association.

But the Lodha Committee interpreted the modified order as thus: if an individual had finished nine years as an office-bearer, whether at BCCI or state level or both combined, that individual was ineligible to continue as an office-bearer at the BCCI or state level effective immediately.