SC accepts structural reforms in BCCI

SC accepts structural reforms in BCCI

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 18) pronounced its order on the issue of implementation of Justice RM Lodha panel's recommendations on massive structural reforms in Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

It suggested restructuring of the BCCI's administrative set-up and proposed a CEO to run daily affairs of the Board who will be accountable to a nine-member apex council. Ministers and bureaucrats now holding office were not to be allowed to hold positions on the board, nor would those holding positions in their state associations or those above 70 years of age. States like Maharashtra and Gujarat having more than one cricket association will have voting rights on rotational basis.

The bench also accepted the recommendation that one person should hold one post in cricket administration to avoid any conflict of interest and scrapping of all other administrative committees in the BCCI after CAG nominee comes in.

The Lodha panel will oversee transition from the old to new regime within the next six months. Under this rule, Lodha Committee recommended that only one association should represent an entire state.

The Lodha Committee had suggested a slew of recommendation to revamp the organisation, which included a one-state-one-vote policy, legalising of betting, banning of advertisements in between overs during cricket telecast, age-limit for BCCI office-bearers, bringing BCCI under RTI and ban of politicians and bureaucrats from the BCCI hierarchy.

A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice T.S. Thakur in a verdict on Monday said that a person can not be simultaneously a office-bearer in state cricket association as well as in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

To have CAG nominee in BCCI to ensure transparency in the world's richest cricket board's functioning.

As far as the recommendations to legalise betting in India and bringing the BCCI under the Right to Information (RTI) Act were concerned, the supreme court said it was leaving the matter to be decided by the government and the parliament.

Related news: