The apex court is bound to deliver the judgement by July 22 when Justice Kalifulla will retire. There will be no further hearings in the case.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Anurag Thakur was the centre of discussion on a day when the two-member special bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah reserved the order on Justice RM Lodha panel recommendations that would see a major overhaul in the manner in which cricket is run in India.
The apex court is bound to deliver the judgement by July 22 when Justice Kalifulla will retire. There will be no further hearings in the case.
On Thursday, as senior counsel KK Venugopal was briefing the court that how BCCI had implemented many of the recommendations put forth by the Justice Lodha panel back in January, from the appointment of a Chief Execute Officer (CEO) to suspending Goa Cricket Association after arrest of its key officials in financial misappropriation, the special bench in return asked the BCCI why it was taking credit for Goa incident.
"Was it BCCI, who filed FIR against Goa financial mess?" the court asked BCCI counsel. When the answer came in the negative, the court was briefed by amicus curiae Gopal Subramanium how BCCI suspended GCA only after police arrested the top three officials including the president. Not stopping there, senior counsel Subramanium further briefed the court over the election of Thakur as BCCI president despite the fact that he has been booked in three criminal cases including the encroachment of land in Dharamsala.
"If BCCI is so serious in implementing the recommendation of Justice Lodha committee, then how come he (Thakur) was allowed to contest elections for the top post?" the court asked, to which the BCCI counsel had no answer.
To this, the court firmly told BCCI that no way could it resist the reforms suggested by the Justice Lodha panel as it was selecting and fielding Team India on behalf of the country.
Venugopal kept saying that the BCCI enjoyed autonomy guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution and this should not be disturbed in the name of reforms. He further pleaded that the board was against at least nine major reforms – one-state one-vote, bar on ministers and government officials for being officer bearers, age cap on cricket officials, change in the composition of the BCCI managing committee, greater representation for IPL franchises on the IPL governing council, tenure restrictions and cap, ban on holding concurrent positions in BCCI and its state units, audit of board's accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India and doing away with the existing committees.
In fact, the BCCI counsel, on Thursday, cited the examples of all other sports bodies in India (over 60) who have been enjoying autonomy in their functions though they also selected and fielded the Indian teams in their respective disciplines.
Appearing for the Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB), senior advocate Nalini Chidambaram raised the issue that despite financial fraud committed by Bihar Cricket Association (BCA), BCCI has again put its weight behind the same.
The bench did not make any comment on this.
){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}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}