Indian cricket board beyond law and control

For the first time in last 15 years, a Special General Meeting (SGM) of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on Wednesday will be without cricket administration's larger than life names like N Srinivasan, Niranjan Shah and Rajiv Shukla.

This is a direct fall out of Supreme Court's special bench putting an end to disqualified state office-bearers from attending the SGM, even as a nominee. Nominees like patrons and vice-patrons have wreaked havoc on the administrative structure of BCCI, over the years. If a person cannot win or wants to remain at a distance from administration, yet wants to enjoy the fruits of administrative powers, he can be co-opted as a patron/vice-patron and can even be nominated to attend BCCI meetings.

In December 2013, DDCA's president Arun Jaitley withdrew from the elections since cricketers had thrown their hats in the ring. On the basis of proxies, his nominees won, and within 15 days, DDCA's Executive Committee passed a resolution that Jaitley would be chief patron and would attend BCCI meetings as a representative of DDCA. In one shot, he could resume charge, yet no accountability could be fastened on to him since he was not an office bearer.

Only a bright lawyer could think of such a plan.

Interestingly, amicus curiae Gopal Subramanium and COA counsel Parag Tripathi rightly stated that Srinivasan was ousted from BCCI because of conflict of interest and had been disqualified from becoming an office-bearer. The SC judgement was categorical about him. He could not have become an office-bearer of TNCA. But he secured a back-door entry to the SGM by getting nominated. This is in clear violation of the spirit of the SC judgement.

Running with the hare and hunting with the hound

With practically no fear of the law, BCCI office-bearers have taken on the top court by inviting the disqualified office-bearers to the various meetings. COA rightly described Srinivasan and Shah as "disqualified office-bearers with vested interest", who were trying to stall the implementation of Justice Lodha panel reforms.

Not only these two, but others like acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary, Rajesh Verma (secretary Jharkhand), Asirbad Behera (secretary Orissa) and Baldev Singh Bhatia (president Chhattisgarh) have also seemingly committed "gross contempt" of the court's orders. They have knowingly and intentionally breached the orders of this court by chairing and attending the SGM of the BCCI held on April 18 held in Delhi.

Bright legal minds in BCCI also know how to manipulate the due process of law. Each time a tricky situation emerges, the administrators come up with one time tested formula — 'take the issue to court'.

This is simple way to embroil those who care about cricket in court cases for years, with a basic aim to eventually tire them out. In Delhi, nearly 60 cases were instituted and defended by DDCA by employing dilatory legal tactics.

Since cricket is an important facet of a state association, every attempt is made to assume control over cricketing matters.

Taking over clubs including institutional clubs, is one way of increasing the management's control over cricket. It is another matter that DDCA spent Rs 2 crore on legal expenses and another Rs 2 crore on payments to various professionals every year. No one quite knows why a cricket body has to spend Rs 4 crore on professionals while much less is spent on conducting cricket. It is a similar story in practically every state association.

One state one vote

The one state-multiple-vote formula suits the entrenched office-bearers to perpetuate their hold over BCCI and state units.

First, it is considered below their standard to allow equal vote to starters like the North Eastern states and secondly their own hold over the BCCI apparatus will be weakened if those extra votes coupled with three Government votes are taken away.

Common folks are confused while trying to decipher what the SC means when they say: "All concerned shall implement the recommendations of the Justice Lodha committee report as far as practicable, barring the issues which have been raised pertaining to membership, number of members of the selection committee, concept of associate membership, etc."

What is simple interpretation for common, law abiding citizens is diametrically opposite for BCCI office-bearers. While common persons would first implement the judgement in letter and spirit, BCCI's legally aware mandarins would see this as an opportunity to find loopholes to delay its implementation.

Everyone knows if the constitution of BCCI does not allow the values to be achieved then it could be said to be illegal as the cricket board is discharging public function.

After one year of SC orders, BCCI office-bearers still do not want to take steps to ensure that constitutional values are adhered to ensure institutional integrity. It is time that the SC ensures total implementation of their judgement, with no if or but.