SC: ‘Purpose of Cooling-off Period is not to Create Undesirable Monopolies’, Allowed Modification of BCCI’s Constitution

Supreme Court Law Insider

Sakina Tashrifwala

Published on: 14 September 2022 at 18:42 IST

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the State Cricket Associations’ office holders may serve two consecutive terms, the Supreme Court said orally on Tuesday before the three-year cooling-off period imposed by the Justice Lodha committee takes effect.

Concerns were raised about the necessity of eliminating the 70-year age restriction for office holders and International Cricket Council (ICC) representatives by a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and DY Chandrachud.

With regard to the cooling-off rule, the Bench stated, “The earlier problem was even if you did one three-year term you had to cool off. That was too strict, because you need time to make networks etc.”

The court was considering a BCCI petition to change the constitution to eliminate the required cooling-off period for office holders in both the state cricket organisations and the BCCI.

The Justice RM Lodha Committee‘s recommendations were used to drought the Constitution, which stipulates that anyone who has served as an office bearer for six years in the BCCI, a State Cricket Association, or a combination of both must wait three years before running for re-election.

Sourav Ganguly, president of the BCCI, and Jay Shah, secretary, would both have to resign from their positions as they had served in such capacities for six years. Previously, they held offices in the Cricket Association of Bengal and the Gujarat Cricket Association, respectively.

If the Supreme Court approves the revisions, Ganguly and Shah would be able to keep their positions.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court selected Senior Counsel and former Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh as Amicus Curiae in the case.

For the BCCI, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that while the Indian game of cricket has been significantly simplified, changes are still necessary when the rules get in the way of practical operations. Further, it was argued against the idea of a cooling-off period before someone moves from state-level to BCCI leadership.

“BCCI is a federal organization; under it [there are] state and district associations. Leadership develops at the grassroots, then, depending on quality and inbuilt work, they gain experience in administration and domain expertise. Thereafter, they migrate to BCCI elections. What we are proposing is a total limit of 9 years for any post.”

The SG continued by citing an individual whose tenure would be shortened by such guidelines.

“Kindly visualise someone who is energetic and starts building a… a stadium or any other project. Because his tenure is truncated, he won’t be able to finish it. The contention of the same people occupying the top post is taken care of by the 70-year age cap and the 9-year tenure limit [proposed] at associations.”

The SG also mentioned changes that would do away with the requirement that administrators hold no public office and have criminal convictions.

Additionally, it was demanded that appointed representatives such as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) submit reports to the elected office holders.

Many of the recommendations were questioned by the bench.

Regarding the proposed change that would permit administrators of other sports to challenge BCCI polling, Justice Chandrachud stated, “The idea is that if you’re in one sport, don’t be in another. At one time, focus on one sport. “

The bench stated that it would be risky to remove the age restriction, especially for ICC delegates, and advised the board to choose younger candidates.

Senior attorney Kapil Sibal, who was representing the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, argued in favour of the revisions by pointing out how many cricketers work for government agencies. They would be ineligible because they would arguably be in “public office” as defined by the Constitution. He continued by saying that the Constitution was mostly drafted based on suggestions from those over the age of 70.

However, the respondent, the Bihar Cricket Association (BCA), objected to the revisions, calling them a manifestation of its desire for “total authority”.

The BCCI has proposed eliminating the cooling-off period for its office bearers, which would allow Ganguly and Shah to continue in office as President and Secretary despite having served six years at their respective state cricket associations.

Earlier, the Justice R M Lodha-led committee had recommended reforms in the BCCI, which have been accepted by the top court.

Related Post