In 2000, Rahul Mehra, a lawyer and cricket lover, initiated a public interest litigation (PIL) against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), demanding transparency and accountability in the way cricket is run in the country.
The BCCI responded by arguing that it was a private society and that the Indian team was not a national side, but one picked by the BCCI. Therefore, it could not be subjected to a PIL of any sort.
The court quashed this contention, thus establishing that the BCCI is, indeed, answerable to the public.
Ten years later, the BCCI is embroiled in what is perhaps the biggest controversy in its history. It is facing many uncomfortable questions: why was one man given so much power to run a lucrative league such as the IPL? Why aren’t rules, rather than the whims of an individual, governing important processes such as franchisee auctioning? What prevented others in the BCCI from taking action?
In an interview with DNA, Mehra says we need to take a hard look at the way office-bearers are elected in the BCCI and the state associations that come under it. But the reforms won’t come from within the BCCI; the government has to step in to clean up the act, he says. Excerpts:
Is there a conflict of interest between those running the IPL and those participating in it?
N Srinivasan was treasurer when Sharad Pawar was BCCI president. When Shashank Manohar took over as president, Srinivasan became the honorary secretary of the BCCI. So you are the honorary secretary of the parent body of the IPL. You are also the president of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association. You also happen to occupy a position in the governing council of IPL — which is a subcommittee of the BCCI and takes all decisions regarding the governing of IPL. And then you are a stakeholder in Chennai Super Kings. Any of your decisions — be it as secretary of the BCCI or governing council member of the IPL — can have a direct impact on Chennai Super Kings. Can there be a clearer case of conflict of interest than this?
Clearly, the administration needs reforms. But how can such reforms be carried out?
Nobody [within the BCCI] will carry them out because they have their vested interests. It has to be an outside agency. It has to be the sports ministry because the BCCI is performing a public function. The government should say we will derecognise you if you don’t toe our line. They could say that we will take away your right to select Team India.
The point is that there has to be political will at the Centre, because obviously this is not going to come from within the BCCI.
The government only acts when there is a hue and cry. The ongoing investigations are highly motivated, but it is still good for the general public. At least something is happening now, which otherwise wouldn’t have.
Do elections at state-level associations also need reforms?
At the local level, the key question is, what kind of electorate do you have? The problem is that you cannot do much about the current electorate since it’s a legacy of the past. But surely, in future, you can ensure that only sportsmen get voting rights. Ultimately, these are not social clubs. These are sporting clubs.
In most associations, you see that there is one individual who has ruled the roost for 30-40 years, and ensured that his cronies, drivers, cooks, peons, relatives, and close friends were inducted as members. Since they happen to be in a majority as members [of the association], time and again the same person keeps coming back to power.
Instead, the BCCI should lay out guidelines whereby, while you might have anyone as a member, voting rights are given only to district-, state-, and international-level players. After all, the office-bearers will be looking at sporting requirements and some relative [of an office-bearer] who has no knowledge about the game is not the ideal person to elect the office-bearers of the association.
When I did my research in 2000, I found that in state associations, not even 5% of the electorate comprises people who have played cricket in their life. If you don’t understand the technicalities and nuances of the game, how can you elect the right person? That’s why there is so much politics, backbiting, and all the dirt that’s coming out now.
For example, Narendra Modi might be a great administrator and a great chief minister, but what are his credentials to come into cricket? Overnight, one saw him catapulted into the central politics of the BCCI because the Gujarat Cricket Association elected him as president. How can that happen? There has to be some work that you have done at the grassroots, some credentials — apart from being a state or national leader — for you to be able to run a sports body.
What about the current manner of electing the top functionaries of the BCCI?
First of all, there should be a standardised way of registering a member association. There are some member associations of the BCCI which are registered under the Societies Registration Act. Others, like the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA), are registered under the Companies Act. The BCCI should standardise this. Member associations should all be registered under the Societies Registration Act or under the Companies Act.
Comments