In a double tribute to transparency in sport administration and women cricketers, the Supreme Court on Monday appointed a four-member Committee of Administrators led by former Comptroller and Auditor General of India Vinod Rai flanked by legendary women Test cricket player, Diana Edulji.
Besides Rai and Edulji, the Apex Court appointed noted historian Ramchandra Guha and IDFC Ltd MD and CEO Vikram Limaye, who is expected to provide the committee with expertise in financial matters.
They will function as the new interim bosses of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and run the day-to-day administration of the cricket body till Lodha reforms are fully implemented and elections held.
A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra avoided the “dark mazes” and pleas for fresh hearings thrown at it by the BCCI, its State members and non-State actors, to take the step forward in the direction laid out by the Justice RM Lodha Committee recommendations.
The BCCI CEO Rahul Johri — who was in the driver’s seat since the Supreme Court ousted former BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke in a January 2 order for stalling Lodha reforms — was ordered to submit a report to the new committee detailing the level of compliance achieved by the BCCI and its members in adopting the Lodha recommendations upheld by the apex court on July 18, 2016.
Johri has to submit the report within a week, following which, the Committee of Administrators has been given four weeks time to scrutinise the compliance achieved and report to the Supreme Court.
The next date of hearing will be on March 27.
“Let the Committee of Administrators find out how many directions of the Lodha Committee has already been complied with, what were the impediments and report to us. Then we will see,” Justice Misra observed.
The Lodha Committee Secretary and advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan was asked to give the BCCI CEO, a check-list of 16 timelines the Lodha panel had prepared for the cricket body and State associations to implement the reforms.
The CEO will consider the timelines to prepare his compliance report.
Notes on the hearing During the hearing, Sankaranarayanan said “zero percent” of the Lodha reforms have been complied with by the BCCI and its members so far.
He objected to the State association’s and the current BCCI office bearers’ insistence that they should be heard first before the Committee of Administrators are appointed.
The Supreme Court order says present office bearers are to “cease and desist” from functioning. That means they have no authority, Sankaranarayanan said.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the three BCCI members — railways, armed forces and Indian Association of Varsities — submitted that appointment of a Committee of Administrators would “disturb the electoral college of the BCCI and change the fabric of the organisation.”
“My three votes have been given to Nagaland, Mizoram and Tripura, where there is no cricket. On the other hand, I have been propagating cricket for 70 years,” Rohatgi said. Referring to Rohatgi’s submissions, advocate Subramanium said: “All this has been argued before,” stating that they are “old wine in a new bottle.”
Meanwhile, the Bench appointed Amitabh Choudhary and Anirudh Chaudhry, both BCCI nominees, and Limaye will represent BCCI in the crucial ICC meet due in February first week.
Legal knots The court further deferred a proposal by Rohatgi to appoint the Secretary of Sports Ministry, as a member of the Committee of Administrators, if not at least as an ‘Observer.’ The court pointed to the fact that a government servant cannot be a BCCI office bearer.
At one point, BCCI counsel and senior advocate Arvind Datar said the committee should work pro bono in the tradition of the former office bearers of the cash-rich cricket body.
The court turned down the argument citing the need for a “professional set of administrators.”
The Bench advised BCCI to come up with a “proposition of a respectable amount” for the Supreme Court to consider as payment to the new administrators for services they will render.
At another instance during the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that Rai was the Chairman of the Banking Board and a “government appointee job.”
“Under the Lodha rules, government servants cannot be office bearers, is it not?” asked Sibal.
But the court cut him short after amicus curiae and senior advocate Gopal Subramanium said the position occupied by Rai was not a government job, and he had once held a high constitutional office. Rai was the suggestion of the amicus and senior advocate Anil Divan.