The controversy over the sexist remarks made by cricketers Hardik Pandya and K.L. Rahul on a Karan Johar chat show became a rallying point for former CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) Vinod Rai-led Committee of Administrators (CoA) to urge the Supreme Court on Thursday to appoint an ombudsman to sort out problems within the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India).
Appearing before a Special Bench of Justices S.A. Bobde and A.M. Sapre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing some of the BCCI's member-State Associations, countered that the CoA itself should be wrapped up and elections to be held.
“CoA has performed its duties. Their mandate is over. The BCCI Constitution has been registered and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies should now hold the elections to the cricketing body,” Mr. Mehta said.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the CoA cannot foist an ombudsman on a “private body” like the BCCI. “They cannot thrust upon what we should do,” he submitted.
'An ombudsman is the need of the hour'
Senior advocate Parag Tripathi for the CoA said issues like that of Pandya and Rahul and what decisions need to be taken on it has to be left to an ombudsman. “The CoA decided that they should not play further till ombudsman decides. There is need for an ombudsman,” he submitted.
Mr. Mehta countered that confusion reigns foremost within the BCCI apparatus under the CoA and the apex cricket body for the past three years and even the dues for use of stadiums like the one in Pune has not been paid so far. He said there was difference of opinion within the CoA itself.
Mr. Rohatgi and senior advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that applications had been made for the “recall” of the August 2018 judgment. These need to be heard first.
After hearing the disarrayed submissions for a while, Justice Bobde asked the lawyers to “hold fire”. The judge said court's amicus and senior advocate Gopal Subramanium had pulled out of the case. Another lawyer had to be found to fill in his shoes.
Narasimha as amicus curiae
The court finally suggested senior advocate P.S. Narasimha, who was not present in the courtroom. It has passed an order asking Mr. Narasimha whether he would care to take on the duties of an amicus curiae in the case.
“I have not read the August 2018 judgment and we have only a fractured picture of the case. Let the amicus come in and then we will see what he had to say,” Justice Bobde addressed the lawyers, adjourning the case for hearing after a week.
In its August 9 last judgment, the Supreme Court finalised the new Constitution for BCCI while rejecting the ‘one-State-one-vote’ recommendation of Justice R.M. Lodha Committee and altering the cooling off period for cricket bosses.
The court had restored full BCCI membership to three associations in Gujarat and Maharashtra each. The cricket associations are Maharashtra, Mumbai and Vidarbha cricket associations in Maharashtra and Gujarat, Baroda and Saurashtra cricket associations in Gujarat.
But it had held that the National Cricket Club and the Cricket Club of India did not deserve to be full members in the BCCI.
Full membership in BCCI
The court gave Services Sports Control Board, the Railways and the Association of Universities full membership in the BCCI. In case of varsities, the court described them as "a nucleus for encouraging the game of cricket among players of the college-going generation".
The court had concluded that an administrator need to “cool off” only after two consecutive terms of six years in office, whether in the BCCI or a State association or a combination of both.
The court had also modified the number of selectors from the current three to five. It observed that a “broad-based selection committee” was required to tap the prodigious talent pool spread across the country.
It had further retained the Lodha panel suggestion to bar government ministers or government servants from holding cricket office. It upheld the age cap of 70 years for cricket administrators.
COMMents
SHARE