SC defers hearing of BCCI’s review petition ‘

The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred its hearing of the petition filed by the BCCI seeking review of the July 18 verdict directing implementation of the Justice R. M. Lodha committee recommendations for sweeping administrative reforms in the board.

A bench of chief Justice T. S. Thakur and Justice S. A. Bobde in a brief hearing in the chamber adjourned it. On July 18 the court accepted the recommendations including a bar on ministers/ civil servants from holding any post in the BCCI and a cap of 70 years for every post.

Rejecting the BCCI’s opposition to ‘ change’, the court said the changes suggested by Justice Lodha panel were necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in the administration. The bench said the aspect that needed to be borne in mind was that neither BCCI nor anyone else has assailed the findings recorded by the committee insofar as the deep- rooted malaise that pervades in the working of the BCCI is concerned.

In its petition, the BCCI said the judgment suffered from several errors apparent on the face of the record and requires a review by a five- judge bench, of which the chief justice of India T. S. Thakur should not be a member.

The BCCI pointed out that the judgment sought to

BCCI feels neither the Lodha committee nor the apex court has the necessary expertise to determine the best way of administering Indian cricket

frame legislative measures for a private autonomous society in a field already occupied by legislation, both Parliamentary and state.

The judgment had neither noted the contentions and facts placed by the board correctly nor dealt with the same. It said the judgment was unconstitutional and contrary to many binding precedents of the apex court.

It also said the judgment adversely affected and nullified the fundamental rights granted to citizens under Article 19( 1)( c) of the Constitution and further the judgment outsources judicial power to a committee of retired judges which was impermissible in law.

The BCCI said the impugned judgment, proceeded on the manifestly erroneous basis that the recommendations made by the committee were the only way of improving its working.