The Supreme Court of India has directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI’s) chief executive officer Rahul Johri to continue to look after the day-to-day activities till it appoints the Committee of Administrators.
The directive thus erased hopes of some of the incumbent functionaries who were hoping to be elevated to resume as BCCI office-bearers in various capacities.
Following the hearing on Friday, an interim order of the three-judge bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud was made public on Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We have been apprised that presently the CEO is functioning and looking after the working of the BCCI and he shall continue to do so till we nominate the Committee, under whose supervision he shall work.”
The provision thus supersedes the earlier direction, issued on January 2, of elevating “senior-most vice-president” — widely believed to be C.K. Khanna — to the president’s post and letting joint secretary Amitabh Chaudhary function as the interim secretary till the administrators’ panel is appointed.
Chaudhary, along with BCCI treasurer Anirudh Chaudhry, had flown in to Mumbai on Saturday. It is understood that the duo intended to take charge on Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Modification backtracked
The Court order also cleared doubts over the tenure for administrators. According to a modification to the January 2 order, the maximum tenure for a BCCI and State association office-bearer was for a “cumulative period” of nine years.
It was pointed out to the bench that it was in contrast to the recommendations of the R.M. Lodha Committee.
As a result, the order specifies that a person can hold office for nine years each in the BCCI and his or her respective State association, albeit with a cooling off period between two stints in the same organisation.
FAQs to be deliberated
Meanwhile, the apex court bench also agreed to discuss whether the FAQs issued by the Lodha Committee last week are to be followed.
Kapil Sibal, representing various State associations, brought it to the Court’s notice that the Lodha committee was issuing FAQs despite the January 2 order restricting its role to “overall policy and direction on such matters as may be referred by this Court”.
“It is urged by him (Sibal) that the Committee is still sending certain FAQs. Whether the FAQs would come under direction No.(ix) or not, shall be deliberated on the next date of hearing,” the order states.
The next hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. on Tuesday.