BCCI acting-secretary Amitabh Choudhary has pointed to impediments created by some fellow members in implementing the Supreme Court ruling regarding the Lodha reforms.
In his affidavit to a show-cause notice issued by the apex court, Choudhary explains his helplessness in the face of the stiff resistance to the implementation of the reforms from some key members of the Board.
He names five Board units — the State associations of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Goa, Saurashtra and Haryana — as objecting to the holding of the SGM on July 11 to implement the reforms.
On the contentious age restrictions — which the Board had been contesting vehemently — Choudhary claims that he had sought to explain to the members that the tenure cap of nine years and the age cap of 70 was not only fair but also supported by empirical facts: in the last four decades there had hardly been a couple of office-bearers who had completed nine years’ cumulative tenure, and equally rare is the instance of an office-bearer holding such position beyond the age of 70.
Choudhary points out that “even the exceptions had become possible only as a result of an amendment made to the constitution as late as in 2012”.
His submission states, though, that there had been no resistance from the BCCI members as far as the formal adoption of the Conflict of Interest rules are concerned.
In the affidavit, Choudhary further seeks to establish that he, personally, was committed to the Supreme Court’s directions regarding the implementation of the Lodha reforms, submitting that he has “always held the Committee of Administrators in very high regard and esteem”, and has been functioning under their supervision as well as in consultation with them.
Choudhary points out that he has taken sincere efforts towards the implementation of the judgement “even going to the extent of antagonising persons with well-entrenched interests”.
To support his claims, Choudhary insists that he had not given in to the “repeated and consistent efforts made by some members to prevent audio recording of the proceedings”.
He submits that he had “at all times striven to implement the reforms [...] and had openly opposed and criticised the contrary view taken by a handful members of the BCCI and a few office-bearers”, and that he had openly aired views “in support of mandated reforms, prominently carried by well-known national dailies”.
