BCCI was waiting for weather to change, says reform panel head Lodha
BCCI was waiting for weather to change, says reform panel head Lodha: FORMER CHIEF Justice of India R M Lodha, who led a panel that was mandated by the Supreme Court to recommend a series of reforms in the administration of Indian cricket six years ago.
He referred to the contentious cooling-off clause in the BCCI constitution as a “snow mountain” that cricket administrators navigate by “waiting for the weather to change.” Lodha was the head of the panel that made its recommendations.
On Wednesday, after the Supreme Court allowed the BCCI to amend the cooling-off period for the board’s office-bearers, Justice Lodha told The Indian Express, “For cricket administrators, the cooling-off clause was like a snow mountain, which they find very difficult to navigate, so they just wait for the weather to change.” This has been the pattern in 2016, 2018, and now 2022.
The Supreme Court, acting on the Lodha Committee report following the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and subsequent conflict-of-interest allegations against cricket administrators. They issued an order in 2016 requiring BCCI officials to serve a maximum of one term (of three years) before stepping down for a three-year cooling-off period.
However, the Indian board has vocally protested the provision in the years since. It was weakened in 2018 to allow BCCI office-bearers to serve two terms (for a total of six years, including a time in a state unit) before the cooling-off period begins, in response to a BCCI petition that multiple panels had heard of the Supreme Court.
The current Supreme Court judgment, which the Indian board is continuing to appeal, will give cricket administrators a cumulative 12-year run in state units and the BCCI without a break.
If the Supreme Court “considered that earlier orders fundamentally erroneous and thought that continuity of office-bearers was more essential than the finality of the verdict,” as Justice Lodha suggested it may, then “in its wisdom had done what was proper” in issuing its most recent order, he said.
But he said, “Why even 12 years if you’re going to apply the continuity element.” Since continuity is so important that it supersedes all other considerations, there’s no need to address the cooling-off period. His question was, “Why 6, 9, or 12 years?”
He explained that his group wanted cricket officials to take a sabbatical after every three-year term because “our idea of a cooling-off time was based on two facets” (i.e., it would prevent the establishment of a monopoly and it would introduce new blood into the administration).
An integral part of any effective regulatory framework, cooling-off periods prevent monopolies from forming. Inevitably, granting a long term will result in a concentration of power in the hands of a select few. It’s based on a rule of law that’s universally recognized, and sports are no exception.
Lodha added that the Supreme Court had given his committee’s report a “threadbare” endorsement.
By issuing its first order on July 18, 2016, the Supreme Court accepted the notion, and the cooling-off clause was formally established, proving the validity of our research.
It’s not that we were completely off base or that our report was completely ridiculous. This provision and our report were approved in the initial hearing without any changes. The order issued on August 9th, 2018, made certain adjustments. Perhaps, he suggested, they have decided that the time is again ripe for a shift.
In addition, the ex-CJI brought out instances where the Supreme Court had to become involved with cricket matters.
The Supreme Court constituted the Lodha Committee after the investigation into the 2013 controversy by Justice (retired) Mukul Mudgal to provide recommendations for structural improvements that would ensure cricket in India was administered efficiently and fairly.
As one of the accused, Gurunath Meiyappan, is the son-in-law of BCCI veteran and IPL franchise owner N Srinivasan, the investigation and court processes in the spot-fixing case had shown that conflict of interest was at the root of many maladies in the BCCI.
In order to understand why the Supreme Court got involved in BCCI business, one must examine the context in which the court acted. It was plain to see and obvious that the same people were continually serving in high political positions.
Furthermore, the court was aware of other developments outside. There is a request for us to investigate the foundation and structure of the organization. From our conversations with a wide range of people, we gleaned that many share some core concerns about the state of the nation’s governance. “There was a call to break up the power structure,” Lodha explained.