Rohtagi’s argument was that despite the fact that Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a private body, but these three bodies are being government organisations and thus cannot be restrained from being represented by either government servant or a Union minister.
It was finally central government’s turn on Friday to jump into the BCCI versus Justice RM Lodha committee reforms matter. Attorney general Mukul Rohtagi raised objections regarding the status of Railways, Services and the Indian Universities’ being downgraded to associate members, thereby taking away their right to vote.
Rohtagi’s argument was that despite the fact that Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a private body, but these three bodies are being government organisations and thus cannot be restrained from being represented by either government servant or a Union minister.
Rohtagi also urged to recall the original judgement of July 18. The three-member bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud, however, made it clear that already the curative and review petitions have been dismissed by the Court, so it has no intention to touch the original judgement.
The Court further cleared the confusion, which arose after January 3 interim orders, by modifying its earlier order and made it clear that the nine-year tenure of an office-bearer in state association or in the BCCI shall not be considered cumulatively.
In simple words, any state association member can now rule for 18 years, nine in state and nine in BCCI, provided he follows up the cooling off period of three years after each term.
This has opened up the gates for officials like Brijesh Patel or Rajiv Shukla, who are still below the age of 70 and have not served a nine-year term in BCCI.
9 in race to govern board
Meanwhile, amicus curiae in the case Gopal Subramaniam and senior counsel Anil Divan submitted nine names for the post of administrators for the BCCI in a sealed cover on Friday.
The Court in response said that a nine-member committee will be “too large” and it would only announce the names on Tuesday after due deliberation. However, the bench questioned why there are names of people who are above the age of 70 in the list.
The Lodha panel recommended no one above 70 can hold an administrative position in the BCCI or any of the state associations.
To this, the amicus replied that “it was a very difficult task for the committee to find people of impeccable integrity to oversee transition in BCCI”.
The SC had on January 2 removed BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke for trying to hinder the implementation of Lodha recommendations.
It also decided to initiate contempt proceedings against Thakur questioning the former BCCI chief as to why he should not be held liable for obstructing the implementation of the SC’s directives.
){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}
 "BCCI")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}