A quick look at the important observations made by the Supreme Court in its order on January 2
ESPNcricinfo staff02-Jan-20175:04
Ugra: A legacy judgement from Justice Thakur
It’s almost a year to the day that the Lodha Committee submitted a damning report on the governance and administrative structures of the BCCI. After a year of the board resisting the implementation of the recommendations, the Supreme Court has taken the unprecedented step of removing the BCCI president and secretary from office. The order delivered by the Supreme Court on January 2, 2017, was just as damning if not as dramatic. Here are some of its highlights:BCCI’s unwillingness to accept recommendations established
The Supreme Court observed that the BCCI remained defiant after the order was passed on July 18, while suggesting the time for objections had been when the Lodha Committee was conducting interviews to compile its report.”Initially, as the [Lodha] Committee informed this Court, BCCI appeared to have taken the position that it was only if its Review Petition as well as Curative Petition were dismissed, that the recommendations of the Committee would be accepted,” the order on January 2 said. “This statement of BCCI at a meeting of its Working Committee held on 21 October 2016 was manifestly misconceived… By the Order of this Court dated 21 October 2016, this Court made it clear, if indeed such a clarification was at all warranted, that:’A party to a litigation cannot be heard to say that it would treat a judgment of this Court as not having binding effect unless the Review or Curative Petitions that it has filed are dismissed.'”The BCCI’s use of the media to gain sympathy did not escape the court either. During the home Test series against New Zealand in September and October, Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri, who are all employed by the BCCI as commentators, had told that the court order was unfair in parts. Parts that the BCCI objected to.”The Committee has repeatedly been confronted with a barrage of unfortunate comments by BCCI – in press conferences and in correspondence with an intent that it should be led to a situation where it throws up its arms in despair and frustration,” the order noted.No legal recourse left for BCCI
The order mentioned that the BCCI’s review and curative petitions were heard and dismissed, leaving the board without further legal recourse against the Lodha Committee’s recommendations.”This Court having furnished sufficient opportunities to BCCI to comply, it is constrained now to take recourse to coercive steps to ensure that the directions contained in its final judgment and order are not left to be a writ in sand,” the order said.Out with vested interests
The BCCI maintained it had not been able to implement the recommendations because its members objected in numbers large enough to prevent a change in the board’s constitution. The court, however, called out what it considered vested interests of the office bearers.”Persons who have a vested interest in continuing in their positions in spite of the norms noted above have ensured that the writ of the court is obstructed and impeded,” the order said, referring to the recommendations the BCCI was not happy with: that persons over 70, persons who had served nine years as BCCI or state association officials, and those who are ministers or government servants or officials in any other sports body, be disqualified from holding office.”We need to emphasise that the turf of the cricket field is not a personal turf or fiefdom,” the order said. “We must hence order and direct that no person shall hereafter continue to be or be entitled for appointment as office bearer of BCCI or a State Association in breach of the above norms. All existing office bearers of BCCI and of the State Associations who do not fulfill the above norms shall with effect from the date of this Order stand disqualified.”Thakur a perjurer?
The court came down hardest on now-former BCCI president Anurag Thakur, and said prima facie that the minutes of a BCCI working committee meeting had been fabricated to support Thakur’s version of events.The ICC chief executive David Richardson said last year that Thakur had, on August 6, 2016, sought a letter from ICC chairman Shashank Manohar stating that the implementation one of the recommendations amounted to government interference in the board, and that it could lead to the ICC penalising the BCCI. The court asked both Thakur and the BCCI general manager of cricket operations Ratnakar Shetty to file affidavits regarding this request. The affidavits were inconsistent, with Thakur’s version matching the minutes of a BCCI meeting held on October 21, 2016.” it would appear that these minutes had not seen the light of the day when the response by Mr Shetty to the status report of the Committee was filed, and have been fabricated subsequently to lend credence to the version of Mr Thakur,” the court said.The court also observed that Thakur “obstructed and impeded” the implementation of the recommendations, and that his stance that he couldn’t do anything if the state bodies didn’t agree was akin to “having washed his hands off a duty and obligation to ensure compliance.”A committee to oversee the BCCI’s functioning
After removing the president and secretary, the court left the running of the BCCI in the hands of its CEO under the supervision of a “committee of administrators”.”This Court shall by a separate order nominate the persons who shall form part of the Committee of administrators,” the order said. “In order to enable the Court to have the benefit of objective assistance in making the nominations, we request Mr Fali S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, and Mr Gopal Subramaniam, the learned Amicus Curiae, to assist the Court by suggesting names of persons with integrity and experience in managing a similar enterprise. We request the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to also place their suggestions before the Court so as to facilitate a considered decision.”In addition to the function assigned above, the Committee of administrators shall also ensure that the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016 (which accepted the report of the Committee with modifications) are fulfilled and to adopt all necessary and consequential steps for that purpose.”Stay only if you comply
The order is likely to wipe out a majority of BCCI and state officials, but there was little respite for those left behind. “Those of the office bearers of BCCI who are not disqualified may continue subject to their filing an unconditional undertaking before this Court within four weeks of the date of this order to abide by and implement the directions contained in the judgment dated 18 July 2016,” the order said. “Upon the Committee of administrators as nominated by this Court assuming charge, the existing office bearers shall function subject to the supervision and control of the Committee of administrators. The Committee of administrators would have the power to issue all appropriate directions to facilitate due supervision and control.”The confusion
While the court dismissed every official rendered ineligible by the Lodha Committee’s recommendations, it stated that in the interim the most senior vice-president and joint-secretary of the BCCI would serve as the president and the secretary. What decides seniority though? Age or experience? The order was silent on the matter.
