Supreme Court on BCCI

Click here for BCCI Reforms

Why in news?

On January 2, in an order the Supreme Court removed the president of BCCI, Anurag Thakur, and the secretary, Ajay Shirke, from their respective positions.

What was the order?

• By accepting the Justice Lodha Committee’s concerns, the court signalled the end of the current form of cricket administration.
• Effective immediately, any BCCI and State associations’ official must be eligible as per the Lodha Committee’s eligibility criteria.
• The senior-most eligible vice-president will be the interim president of the BCCI.
• The joint secretary will be the interim secretary for the next two weeks.
• The court also appointed two senior advocates to propose names for a committee of administrators that will essentially govern cricket and simultaneously ensure implementation of the Lodha Committee recommendations.
• On January 19 the Supreme Court will release the names of the committee of administrators.
• This will officially commence the transition to the court-appointed administration era.
• Eligible officials must provide a declaration that they will be in compliance with the Lodha Committee’s directives.
• The court also implied that Mr. Thakur could face contempt charges for obstructing the implementation of the court’s orders, and has recommended pursuing a perjury charge for lying under oath and allegedly falsifying the BCCI’s minutes from August 22. However, with both Mr. Thakur and Mr. Shirke seemingly having accepted their ouster, a more likely outcome is the court requiring a written or oral apology.

What are the shortcomings?

• The names that were mentioned in the sealed envelope submitted by the Justice Mudgal Committee in its report on the spot-fixing scandal that triggered this entire stand-off is still remaining secret.
• There is a growing buzz that some State associations may yet file appeals and that might be complicated with the change of leadership in Supreme Court.
• The IPL is in serious limbo.
• There is no telling if there’s been an adverse impact on the media rights value.

What is the significance of the verdict?

• BCCI failed to notice the changing perception of governance in sport and not just in India. e.g FIFA has seen an invasive overhaul recently, and in India, the Sports Ministry’s vocal chastising of the Indian Olympic Association’s controversial appointments. The verdict is set to correct it.
• An overhaul of this nature has never been attempted before, at least not successfully. This could turn out to be a template for sports governance globally, or just the opposite.
• An interim committee tasked solely with the implementation of the court’s verdict and to oversee a transparent and fair election would have been ideal. Perhaps that is what will actually happen.
• Perceived arrogance and insularity aside, the Board has done what it is tasked to do unlike any other sports federation in the world i.e develop and promote the sport itself.
• Therefore the real challenges and work towards ensuring not just a successful governance regimen but an equally successful on- and off-pitch tenure for the new leadership has just begun.

Category: Mains | GS – II | Regulatory Bodies

Source: The Hindu