Cricket officials can hold office for 18 years, not nine: SC

Tribune news service 

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, January 20 

The Supreme Court today allowed cricket administrators to be office-bearers of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and any of its state units for nine years each and agreed to hear a plea against the ban on ministers and bureaucrats holding office in cricket bodies. 

The clarification will allow cricket administrators to be part of state units and BCCI for 18 years — six three-year tenures with a three-year cooling-off period after every tenure.

A Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said it would consider naming a panel of administrators to manage the day-to-day affairs of BCCI at the next hearing on January 24. The Bench, which included Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, made the remark after going through the recommendations of amicus curiae Gopal Subramanium and Anil Divan for appointing nine persons as administrators. 

BCCI CEO Rahul Johri will report to the proposed administrators' panel. The Bench said the names would not be disclosed till the next hearing. It said it wanted to restrict the strength of the administrators' panel as nine members were not required.

The apex court has already sidelined BCCI office-bearers, including its president Anurag Thakur, for their failure to comply with its orders to implement the reforms recommended by the Justice RM Lodha Committee.

Responding to a query, Subramanium said some of the persons on the recommended list were above the age of 70 as it was difficult to find (suitable) people below the age of 70. 

Court to revisit ban on ministers, bureaucrats 

The Bench agreed to revisit the ban on ministers and government officials as the Army and other defence services, Railways and the Association of Indian Universities pleaded that this restriction had threatened the very existence of their cricket units. 

Arguing for the three, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi also pleaded that the apex court had no power to downgrade them from full members with voting rights to the status of associate members who had no voting rights.

Rohatgi also pleaded against the administrators' panel as this was beyond the scope of the case in the SC which was meant only to take action against those involved in alleged betting and match-fixing in the Indian Premier League.

Appearing for Mumbai, Baroda and Himachal Pradesh, senior counsel Kapil Sibal said his clients had also been deprived of the voting right against the legal provisions.

The Bench modified its order on the nine-year tenure restriction on a plea by Sibal that the cap was prescribed at the instance of the two amicus without informing any of the state units or BCCI. The Lodha panel had in fact suggested a tenure cap of nine years each for any of the state unit and BCCI, and not nine years cumulatively. On January 24, the Bench would also hear a plea seeking the removal of 'frequently asked questions' on the Lodha panel website as this was outside the panel's mandate.

Sibal also pleaded that BCCI was unable to take part in the International Cricket Council meeting, slated for February 2 & 3, for finalising financial deals in the absence of office-bearers. The proposed administrators would not be able to hold negotiations as they were not part of the earlier rounds spread over several years.