Supreme Court Order on Lodha Panel Report Implementation by BCCI


Monday could be a landmark day in the history of cricket and how it will be run by the Board of Control for Cricket in India in future. The two-judge bench, comprising of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah, will deliver its order on the recommendations made in the Lodha panel report. These are aimed at reforming the administration of the BCCI and its affiliated units. Get live updates of the judgement here.13:30 hrs IST: Cricket Association of Bihar secretary Aditya Verma is in Supreme Court. He was the man who started the IPL corruption case against ex-BCCI president N. Srinivasan. Verma is seeking inclusion of Bihar in the BCCI fold. He is also against current president Anurag Thakur. Bihar has three bodies and has lost its prominence in Indian cricket due to internal strifeRM Lodha Report 1807Retired Justice RM Lodha with his recommendations on BCCI overhaul.© PTIHere are the top 10 developments of the case:1. In January 2015, the Supreme Court appointed the RM Lodha panel to look into the functioning of the BCCI and suggest structural changes to bring in more transparency.2. On January 4, 2016, the Supreme Court released the recommendations made by the three-member Lodha panel. The proposals were mainly aimed at structural changes for better governance. Age and tenure caps, one-state-one-vote and accountability and distribution of BCCI’s funds were mainly in focus.3. On January 7, 2016, the BCCI takes note of the proposals in Lodha panel report and tells its affiliated units to send their views. Several BCCI units object to the one-state-one-vote proposal. The states of Maharashtra, Gujarat and West Bengal have multiple associations with voting rights4. On February 4, 2016: The Supreme Court sets a March 3 deadline for the BCCI to make their stance clear. The Bench is adamant that the proposals must be implemented. “If you have any difficulty in implementing it (the reforms), we will have the Lodha Committee implement it for you,” Justice Thakur tells the BCCI counsel5. On February 19, a BCCI SGM points out anomalies and difficulties in implementing the Lodha panel report. Then secretary Anurag Thakur is asked to file an affidavit to challenge the Lodha report.6. On March 2, the BCCI files its affidavit. Meanwhile, the BCCI executes some of the proposals made by the Lodha panel. The Board appoints a CEO, appoints an ombudsman (Justice AP Shah) and addresses conflict of interest issues. The BCCI is firm to oppose the one-state-one-vote proposal and restriction of commercials during live broadcast of Tests and ODIs.7. On March 3, the Supreme Court objects to BCCI’s views. The Bench remains firm on restricting advertisements during live matches. Responding to the BCCI counsel’s argument that a cap on advertisements during a match would “cripple” the board’s income, Justice Thakur asks: “Do you mean that your commerce should overtake the enjoyment of the game?”8. On April 5, the Supreme Court slams the method of distributing funds to its affiliated units. The court is not amused with unequal distribution of money, lack of focus on north-east states and how money is being used to corrupt and catch votes.9. Over April and May, the Supreme Court continues to slam the BCCI saying it is refusing to reform itself and “running a prohibitory regime.” “You have complete monopoly. If any cricket club or association wants to do anything, we are least bothered. We are not here to reform every cricketing club. But if any institution which is discharging public duty like BCCI, then any organisation or association associated with it will have to reform itself.”10. Before it breaks for the summer vacation on May 3, the top court makes it clear that state associations will have to fall in line and implements the reforms suggested by the Lodha panel report.”Once the BCCI is reformed it will go down the line and all cricket associations will have to reform themselves if they want to associate with it. The committee constituted in the wake of match-fixing and spot-fixing allegations was a serious exercise and not a futile exercise,” the two-judge bench said. On June 30, the top court finally decides to issue an order.

135 total views, 1 views today