It also has to decide on finalising a timeline for new elections as per the new constitution of the Indian cricket board adopted more than two years ago.
The most important point before the Supreme Court bench on Thursday, when it reconvenes to hear the much-talked about BCCI case, will be to sort out the feud between members of its own appointed Committee of Administrators (COA).
It also has to decide on finalising a timeline for new elections as per the new constitution of the Indian cricket board adopted more than two years ago.
The two members of COA — Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji — have hardly been seeing eye to eye on any of the important issues in last few months.
In Thursday's hearing, the newly-constituted court comprising Justices SA Bobde and AM Sapre are expected to either appoint two more members to fill up the vacant places or lay out a roadmap for an early elections to give power back to original stake holders.
Fight among COA
Originally a four-member committee, COA has now been reduced to two for over a year now. Though Rai and Edulji had established a good working relationship, of late, there have been cracks.
The situation has worsened so much that Edulji has apparently also discussed the possibility of filing a separate status report in the SC, complaining how Rai has been taking one-sided decisions.
Rai is said to have taken decisions on his own in the matters ranging from constituting a committee to inquire into CEO Rahul Johri's conduct in the sexual harassment complaint to dealing with indiscipline of players Hardik Pandya and KL Rahul.
Rai wants an ad-hoc ombudsman to be appointed, who will carry out the inquiry with regards to Pandya and Rahul. But Edulji, citing constitution, has ruled that out and wants a full-time ombudsman to be named. That can only happen at the AGM, which can be assembled only after fresh elections are called.
So Edulji is set to ask the court for its guidance on the issue.
Old guards unimpressed
The difference of opinion between the two COA members has also given enough fuel to the BCCI members. Many of the old guards are now seen backing Edulji in her fight against Rai on many issues.
To date, though, not a single member association of the BCCI, or the parent body, has implemented the Justice Lodha reforms in toto.
And the COA has now recommended that the BCCI conduct elections within 90 days from the court's ruling and has requested, in its status report, that the court approve a timeline for elections.
This despite the fact that the new BCCI constitution was registered last August. Going by the last (Oct. 27) status report, not a single of the 34 state associations of the BCCI had been fully compliant with the reforms.
The COA identified seven states as being "non-compliant" while the rest fell under the "partially compliant" or "substantially compliant" categories.
Amicus curiae resigned
To make the matters worse, amicus curiae Gopal Subramaniam's resignation last month, citing personal reasons, could make the implementation even more difficult.
The senior counsel was seen as guiding force for Rai and top BCCI officials when it came to interpretation of reforms.
Given how SC has not filled the vacant posts of COA — Vikram Limaye and Ramachandra Guha — there is every chance that Amicus spot may also go vacant for now.
The court is also likely to take up petition of Aditya Verma, asking to make the findings of the ad-hoc inquiry committee that gave clean chit to CEO Johri despite serious objections were raised by lady member Veena Gowda, an advocate.
The COA will submit the findings in a sealed envelope.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Diana Edulji and Vinod Rai")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}