The Supreme Court’s final decision on the much-anticipated new Constitution for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) took place on July 18, 2016. The court agreed to most of the reforms proposed by the committee headed by Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha, intending to overhaul cricket administration in India following the spot-fixing scandal that tarnished the 2013 Indian Premier League (IPL).
Rejection of ‘One State-One Vote’ Recommendation
A key point of contention was the ‘One State-One Vote’ proposition put forward by Justice Lodha’s committee. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this perspective, arguing it could potentially hinder the prosperity of cricket. Instead, they favour the pre-existing structure of BCCI and acknowledge the holistic contributions made by cricket associations such as Vidarbha and Mumbai in Maharashtra, and Baroda and Saurashtra in Gujarat. As a result, these entities have been re-endowed with full membership and voting rights within the board.
Understanding the Context Behind One State-One Vote Rule
The original rule had effectively extinguished the representation of noted cricket associations while assigning voting rights to states with a comparatively weaker cricket presence. This led to concerns of proxy or dummy voting. The court argued that using territoriality as an exclusionary criterion is problematic as it disregards the substantial contributions made by these associations to cricket’s popularisation and development.
Changes to Selection Committee
The courts also resolved to increase selectors’ count from three to five, reinforcing their belief in a broad-based selection committee. This move aims to harness the prodigious talent pool distributed throughout the country, offering opportunities to individuals with limited experience but potential for valuable contribution.
Restrictions on Cricket Administrators
Rigorous limitations were put in place for cricket administrators as well. It was upheld that government ministers or servants could not hold any cricket office. A maximum age of 70 was established for any cricket administration roles.
Amended Cooling-Off Period
The cooling-off period, a contentious topic, was altered significantly. According to the revisions, the cooling-off period will now come into effect after two consecutive terms. Administrators will then be eligible for one last term after a complete dissociation from cricket management at both BCCI and state association levels for three years. This is a divergence from Justice Lodha’s suggestion of implementing the cooling-off period after each three-year tenure. It was stated by the court that two consecutive terms (equalling six years) provide ample time for the deployment of experience and knowledge for the game’s benefit, without leading to a power monopoly.
Lodha Recommendation of Apex Council Upheld
A prominent recommendation accepted by the court was the establishment of an apex council to professionally manage the BCCI. The council, consisting of positions like Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and other officers, must be filled through transparent and professional recruitment. This council would have nine members, five of whom (the president, vice-president, secretary, joint secretary, treasurer, and a member) are to be elected by the General Body.
