Pushed into a corner by the Supreme Court after failing to comply with the Justice R M Lodha Panel recommendations, the beleaguered BCCI appears to have been left with no option but to adopt them in totality at its Special General Meeting here tomorrow.
The SGM has been convened to consider the amendments to the rules and regulations of BCCI as recommended by the Justice Lodha Committee.
But in the light of the stinging remarks by the Supreme Court yesterday asking BCCI to “fall in line” after the Lodha panel sought removal of the top brass of BCCI, the Board needs to find a way to adopt reforms and avoid forcible exit of its officials.
In violation of specific instructions issued by the Lodha panel, which had been asked to monitor the implementation of the reform process by the Supreme Court, the board at its AGM appointed the working committee, standing committees, selection panels and Ajay Shirke became the secretary.
The Lodha panel, by an e-mail dated August 31, had issued the direction to BCCI in the context of the First Compliance Report submitted by the Board six days earlier, that the BCCI was asked to transact only ‘routine business’ at its AGM.
“The Committee now directs that this AGM be limited only to ‘routine business’ concerning the past year (2015-2016) and that any business or matters relating to the next year (2016-2017) be dealt with only after the adoption of the MoA and rules as per the recommendations of the committee in accordance with the same,” the Lodha panel had said in its directive to the board.
“The purpose of this direction was to ensure that the recommendations which had to be implemented are not circumvented by delaying the formal adoption of the MoA and rules & regulations by the BCCI by creating fait accompli,” the Lodha panel said in its status report to the Supreme Court.
After mentioning that the minutes of the AGM had not been furnished to it, the panel said in its status report to the apex court that “the decisions Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 & 8 (as uploaded on the BCCI’s website) are in violation of the aforesaid directives issued by the SC Committee on 31.8.2016 and frustrates the implementation of this Hon’ble Court’s judgement.”