From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: Reversing its own previous judgment barring the office-bearers of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) not to hold their posts for more than three years, ithe Supreme Court paved way on Wednesday for Sourav Ganguly and Jay Shah to continue in their respective posts as president and secretary for another three years.
“Indian cricket is successful not because of judicial review but because of its administration,” said Justice D Y Chandrachud as the SC refused to intervene in BCCI’s internal administration.
The 2-member Bench headed by him, along with Justice Him Kohli, allowed amendments in the BCCI constitution to relax the cooling off period from one to two consecutive terms for the office-bearers of the BCCI as well as the affiliated state associations. It amounts to anyone be the office-bearers of the cricket bodies for 12 years — 6 years in the state administration and another 6 years in the BCCI.
The Bench passed the order after hearing the BCCI’s legal counsel Tushar Mehta, the solicitor general of India.
This is a change of stance from the SC after it had approved some significant reforms recommended by the RM Lodha Committee in 2018 – one of which was that BCCI officials could not continue in office for more than three years.
Instead of a mandatory cooling-off period following six years as an administrator (3 years in state administration + 3 years in BCCI), office bearers are now set to get terms of 6+6 years.
In October 2019, a new BCCI administration was elected with cricketer Sourav Ganguly as president, Jay Shah, son of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, as secretary, Arun Dhumal as treasurer, and Jayesh George as joint secretary. Within two months of taking charge, the Ganguly administration moved the court contesting the cooling-off period.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the BCCI’s argument to remove the 70-year age cap, keeping the upper age limit of the office-bearers of the cricket bodies at 67 years.
While the BCCI argued that the experience is necessary in managing and administration, the SC responded citing England and Cricket Australia’s structure. The bench asked, “Do you see 75+ people managing ECB and CA?”
