In order to oppose the age cap, MCA took the name of Sunil Gavaskar to show that "such a great player would not be able to serve the game if age bar is implemented".
Influential cricket associations like Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) and Baroda Cricket Association (BCA) are trying to save their monopolistic hold over the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) than actually opposing the reforms suggest by the Supreme Court-appointed Justice RM Lodha panel recommendations.
This was evident after hearing MCA's senior counsel BH Marlapalle arguments spread over two days. Marlapalle kept pleading before the special bench comprising Justices TS Thakur and FMI Kalifulla "to somehow keep voting right intact and allow serving government ministers to carry on, even if they are above 70 years of age to hold on to their posts".
MCA pleaded that it would be very difficult to hold cricket matches without having ministers as administrators as several clearances were required from the authorities for the purpose. "Is it a happy situation that matches can't be held without political patronage," the bench asked.
"Certainly not, but that is the ground reality," MCA said, prompting the bench to remark that "the system should work without any political clout."
In order to oppose the age cap, MCA took the name of Sunil Gavaskar to show that "such a great player would not be able to serve the game if age bar is implemented".
However, the apex court remained unconvinced while observing that "they (eminent players) could continue to render their services in several other ways".
"Why don't you have an advisory board of politicians and ministers if you want to benefit from their administrative experience?" the apex court asked MCA, for which senior counsel had no answer.
The court wanted to know further "why the BCCI was according 'preferential treatment' to the MCA, thus, ordering Mumbai cricket to disclose its income, net capital expenditure and distribution of income.
Arguing for Baroda Cricket Association (BCA), senior counsel Kapil Sibal tried to convince the court "why states like Maharashtra or Gujarat should be given more than one vote citing historical background of pre independence princely states".
The Bench, however, made it amply clear that the SC had set up the Justice Lodha panel to infuse transparency, objectivity and credibility into cricket administration and since BCCI and its state units were discharging a "public function" they could no way say that the judiciary should stay away from the game.
The arguments would continue on April 18.
){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}
 "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}