Supreme Court strikes a balance in formulating rules for BCCI

The Supreme Court’s decision to modify some of the Justice Lodha committee recommendations for reforming Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is practical. It will be recalled that the apex court had accepted the committee’s recommendations in July 2016. But in directing modifications now, it has tried to strike a middle path. One of the main recommendations that have been modified is the one-state-one-vote formula. The committee had suggested this to prevent states like Maharashtra and Gujarat – which have multiple cricketing boards – from wielding disproportionate influence within BCCI. But the apex court has rightly recognised the legacy and contributions of cricketing associations like Mumbai, Vidarbha, Baroda and Saurashtra, restoring their full membership status in BCCI.

Plus, a rotational representation system among the boards within a state would be overly complicated. Similarly, the apex court’s move to relax the cooling off period for office bearers is also welcome. The committee proposal of three three-year tenures with mandatory three-year cooling off periods after every term would have severely impeded continuity. The Supreme Court’s modification to a three-year cooling off period after two consecutive terms is far more practical.

That said, the apex court has retained provisions barring ministers, bureaucrats, holders of public office and office bearers of other sports associations from having a role in BCCI. This, along with the age cap of 70 years for members, will bring a sea change to cricket administration. BCCI will see a whole new crop of fresh faces after elections are held following registration of the new constitution. The Lodha committee was tasked with suggesting ways to prevent fraud and conflict of interest within BCCI. The Supreme Court has done well in tempering the recommendations with practicality. Hopefully, this will usher in a new age of transparent cricket administration in India.