Faced with the defiance of the Board of Control for Cricket in India's to implement the lodha panel recommendation for sweeping reforms in the functioning of the cricket body, the Supreme Court on Monday reserved its orders on what further steps could be taken to make the “defiant and obstructionist” BCCI fall in line.
The Justice lodha Committee informed the apex court on Monday that not a single State cricket association has obeyed the court order of October 7 asking them to file affidavits to endorse the committee's recommendation. To make matters worse, BCCI president Anurag Thakur submitted a personal affidavit to the court admitting that he had requested the Chairman of International Cricket Council (ICC) in August 2016 to suggest whether appointing a nominee of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in the BCCI will attract disqualification of the Indian entity from ICC over Government interference in its functioning.
Interestingly, what Thakur admitted on affidavit was denied openly by the BCCI in an earlier affidavit filed by one of its office-bearer Ratnakar S Shetty. Finding contradiction in both stands, the Bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said, “We had only wished to know whether an attempt was made to secure a letter from the ICC to set it up as a ground for not complying with our judgment.”
The court also examined the Register of Minutes containing the meeting where a decision was taken to seek a letter from ICC.
On a preliminary look, the Bench commented, “The minutes and the later affidavit by Thakur seem to be a carbon copy. But the affidavit by Shetty is the odd one out.”
Senior advocate Gopal Subramabnium, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, submitted that the affidavit of the BCCI President clearly holds him guilty of contempt. He submitted that circumstances were fit for the court to either order an independent panel of administrators to replace the BCCI top brass as the present dispensation showed no intention of honouring the court's directions.
He was even open to the court asking lodha Committee to appoint administrators of its choice.
The Bench said, “Once we have given a judgment, no clarification (from ICC) was needed. Your statement was made with a view to obstruct implementation of judgment which not only amounts to contempt, but even perjury. At every stage there appears to be defiance and obstruction at your (BCCI) end.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal informed the court that the recommendation like One State One Vote and certain restrictions concerning age bar and holding dual posts were major points in the reforms package on which the Board was unable to garner three-fourth majority. He sought additional time to persuade Board members, but the Bench said that time will be granted only if the Board gives an “unequivocal” undertaking to implement all reforms within a specific time-frame. Till such time, the Bench indicated, that the present squeeze on release on funds to member associations will continue as also a restriction on award of further contracts or tenders without prior approval of lodha panel.