Cooling off period in BCCI gets watered down
Cooling off period in BCCI gets watered down: The Supreme Court’s decision to water down the cooling-off period for cricket office-bearers is only the most recent chapter in the clause’s tumultuous history.
The Lodha Committee was established primarily to recommend improvements in Indian cricket. One of its provisions was that no person could hold the role of cricket board president or secretary for more than two consecutive terms.
Concerned
Justice RM Lodha stated to The Indian Express, “Cooling off was the most significant pillar of our findings as far as the governance and structure of the BCCI is concerned.”
However, since its implementation, the cooling-off time provision has become a source of conflict because it affects the board’s long-established power brokers.
They petitioned the highest court in the land to overturn a law that required a three-year cooling-off period after serving in office for three years, whether at the BCCI or a state organization. A six-year “cooling off” period is now mandated, up from the original three years proposed in the Lodha report of 2016.
In an interview, Justice YV Chandrachud was reported as saying, “Six years in continuance is a sufficiently long duration for expertise and information gained to be employed in the interest of the game without at the same time resulting in a monopoly of power.”
The current BCCI president, Sourav Ganguly, and the current BCCI secretary, Jay Shah, would have been required to resign from their respective positions as president of the Cricket Association of Bengal and the Gujarat Cricket Association in July 2020 under the revised rule.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday cleared the path for them to keep serving for another six years, first in the BCCI and then in their respective state associations.
The move came after BCCI petitioned the country’s top court for approval of a constitutional amendment to remove the provision for a “cooling off period.”
This effectively means that a person can simultaneously serve as president of a state organization and the BCCI for 12 years.
However, after serving two consecutive terms as a member of a state organization, a person must wait three years before being able to run for office in that body again.
A longer term in office was argued for on the grounds that it takes time to learn the ins and outs of running the BCCI or a state association.
It was argued that it would be counterproductive to discard knowledge and skills that have been honed over time. It was also maintained that BCCI would be better represented in the International Cricket Council (ICC) and other multilateral fora by someone who had served in that position for longer.
Playing the system
The Lodha panel’s first recommendations called for the cooling-off period to be imposed after a three-year term, either at the BCCI or a state association. This time, it will be enforced after a period of four times as long.
The six years in office allowed by Wednesday’s verdict is equivalent to two terms of three years each. For the purpose of determining the cooling-off period, it is unclear whether a tenure of less than three years will be treated as a distinct term.
Other sticking points
The cooling-off period was the primary source of contention, but the BCCI also requested changes to several other aspects of the Lodha Committee’s suggestions. One of these was a three-person panel that would decide. Another was the “one state, one vote” principle.
Most notably, the states of Maharashtra (which comprised Mumbai and Vidarbha) and Gujarat each had multiple member organizations (which included Saurashtra and Baroda).
It was stated that it would be a disgrace if these member bodies were not given BCCI membership and voting privileges because of their enormous contribution to Indian cricket.
The BCCI successfully petitioned the court on August 9, 2018, and the court decided to modify the one-state-one-vote requirement by allowing a five-member selection committee. In addition, Services, Railways, and the Association of American Universities were also granted voting privileges.