Confusion over tenure even after apex court order
NEW DELHI: The clamour to hold administrative positions in Indian cricket is so high that even after the Supreme Court approved a new constitution for the BCCI on August 9, 2018, at least two high-profile officials are either seeking clarification on clauses relating to tenure or urging the court to overturn a verdict that uprooted one of them as chief.
Acting BCCI secretary Amitabh Choudhary and former BCCI president Anurag Thakur both filed petitions in the Supreme Court last week. While Thakur’s appeal to review an order that threw him out as Board boss has been rejected, Choudhary’s petition seeking clarification on “tenure” of a cricket official is yet to be “mentioned” or listed for a hearing.
After three years of deliberations during which two BCCI presidents – Thakur and N Srinivasan – were removed, the Supreme Court on August 9 finally signed off on new rules and regulations aimed at a more transparent and professional BCCI. The new constitution was registered on August 21 and within 48 hours, the Committee of Administrators, acting on the Supreme Court order, made the ‘acting’ office-bearers virtually powerless.
Till Monday, no state had complied with the new constitution. Although the units have until September 20 to accept the new rules, Choudhary’s petition seeking clarification on ‘tenure’ and ‘cooling off’ is a clear reflec- tion of the confused state of mind of several senior officials who want to stay in administration either at the state or BCCI.
Interpretation of the clause on disqualification is the most contentious. According to the new constitution, a person shall be disqualified from being an office-bearer, a member of the Governing Council or any committee or a representative to the ICC or a similar organisation if he or she “has been an officebearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of nine years or of a state association for a cumulative period of nine years.”
Choudhary, in his petition, points out to an order dated March 24, 2017 that says nine- year tenures at BCCI and state are to be treated “separately”. He contends the new constitution effectively “combines two tenures” and creates an “anomalous” situation that needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court. He also points out to practical problems of the new rules.
On Monday, Vinod Rai, who heads the Supreme Court-appointed COA, did very little to clear the air on the “nine-year tenure” and “cooling off” rules.
“The order of the honourable Supreme Court is exceedingly clear. I don’t want to give a BCCI interpretation of it. It’s for the states to follow them. I don’t want to talk upfront … let it be clarified by the court,” said Rai.