It is a clear attempt by a group of individuals to interfere into the day-to-day activities of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the Madras High Court said on Monday, reacting to a plea moved by former IPS officer R.K. Raghavan and seven others.
The First Bench of Chief Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice S. Vaidyanathan made the observation on a Public Interest Litigation moved by Mr. Raghavan and others, seeking to forbear the Chairman of International Cricket Council (ICC) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) from agreeing to receive any amount lower than the agreed contribution - a 21 per cent revenue share - from the total revenue of ICC, which would be approximately Rs. 3,400 crores for the period 2015-2023.
When the PIL came up for hearing, the Bench observing that such relief cannot be sought under a Public Interest Litigation, as there was no public issue involved, suggested the petitioners to move an appropriate civil suit in the appropriate forum.
As Senior Council N. Vijay Narayanan sought a day’s time to get instructions from the petitioners, the Bench adjourned the PIL to April 20.
According to Mr. Raghavan, a former Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), there was an agreement between the members of ICC which committed 75 per cent of revenue generated, after meeting the event costs, to the 10 full Test playing members (England and Wales Cricket Board, Cricket Australia, New Zealand Cricket, Board of Control for Cricket in India, Pakistan Cricket Board, Sri Lankan Cricket Board, Bangladesh Cricket Board, West India Cricket Board, South Africa Cricket Board, and the Zimbabwe Cricket Board) equally and 25 per cent to the Associated Members.
“There are almost 100 Associate Members including some smaller nations, where the game is not so popular compared to India and there were large nations where cricket was not played regularly. The facts being so, there was no thought at that time as to what was the contribution by each of the full members to the revenue stream particularly from the sale of media rights and sponsorship and the income was distributed evenly,” the petitioners said.
They added that it was only in the recent cycle (2015-2013) for broadcast of ICC events, there was a set of changes made by the ICC which gave India its rightful share. “There were compelling reasons to rework the sharing of the ICC revenue, such as the fact that 50 percent of the population of India is equal to the population of all the full members of ICC, and the BCCI does not receive any financial help from the government unlike other members and the extent of cricket being played in India demanded more income to improve the infrastructure and develop the game,” Mr. Raghavan and others claimed.
Considering the facts, the ICC leadership decided to shell out 21 per cent of the total revenue to India, for the fee cycle 2015 -2023, a resolution was passed to this effect by the ICC on February 8, 2014. By this latest agreement, BCCI would receive approximately Rs. 3,400 crores as its share for the fee cycle, the petitioner said.
Mr. Raghavan alleged that the facts being so he learnt through media reports that in a special general body meeting of BCCI held on February 19, its member Shashank Manohar who is also the Chairman of ICC obtained approval to re-negotiate a downward revision, a reduction of six percent of the revenue share agreed to India by the ICC.
Mr. Raghavan said, "What is worse is, it appears that hardly any member of the BCCI spoke against the move, nor was any detailed discussion undertaken to quantify what could be the possible loss of revenue and for what earthly reason the downward revision was warranted when the country is viewed as the world leader in cricket."
Claiming that the proposed reduction would mean that BCCI would receive Rs. 3,000 crores less as its share for the fee cycle 2015-2023 and 2023-2031, the petitioners alleged that Mr. Shashank Manohar was operating with an agenda to undo everything that was achieved by the previous BCCI management at the ICC level, and in the process the nation’s interest was being compromised severely.
