Back to the future for Indian cricket?
MUMBAI : On October 13, leading heads of Indian cricket administration converged in Mumbai again after three years. The 33-month rule of the Supreme Court appointed Committee of administrators (COA) was ending and it was the last day of filing nominations for top posts in India’s richest sporting body (BCCI).
There was an air of anticipation in the lobby of a popular south Mumbai five-star hotel, situated minutes away from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) headquarters. Former BCCI presidents Anurag Thakur and N Srinivasan were among those locked in negotiations to find consensus candidates and avoid elections
EARLY HINT
It was Thakur who first hinted that a former cricketer would take charge.
“There were very few options under the new guidelines and there was a need to send the right message at a time BCCI was returning to democracy,” said a senior BCCI official who did not want to be named. Aware of his heft as a successful captain and head of the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB), Sourav Ganguly gave a president-or-nothing option when Brijesh Patel’s name was doing the rounds.
Ganguly was just what BCCI needed at the time. Jay Shah settled for the secretary’s post and Srinivasan backed down to accept Ganguly’s candidacy. It was Srinivasan who broke the news at a late dinner gathering that Ganguly would be the next BCCI president-elect. A week later, Ganguly hit all the right notes. He turned up in his India blazer on his first day at work. Ganguly, the first India cricketer
to be elected president of the BCCI since 1954, also got India to hold a day-night Test and spoke about starting the process of getting domestic cricketers’ contracts.
On November 9, the 38 BCCI state units received a notice of the Annual General Meeting, scheduled for December 1.
But with it came an attachment that set off alarm bells. It contained a draft of proposed amendments to the new constitution that would shake up the governance model approved by the Court.
One proposal was to do away with the three-year cooling-off period after an administrator had served six years in office, at
BCCI or at a state unit or both. The BCCI found ‘this restriction a big blow to selecting talented and experienced hands’. “Hence, cooling off can be restricted to BCCI and the member state respectively,” the amendment explainer said. If passed unanimously, it would open up possibility for Ganguly, secretary Jay Shah and jointsecretary Jayesh George to serve a full three-year term.
“You are effectively killing the reforms process. You are making a mockery of it,” says Gopal Sankaranarayanan, secretary to the Lodha committee. The Lodha committee was appointed by the Supreme Court to suggest improvements in the working of BCCI.
“They are forced to have some cricketers on board now. Women have a voice. Slowly changes will come. It won’t be overnight. But not, if you allow these sort of amendments to happen,” says Sankaranarayanan.
BCCI treasurer Arun Dhumal defends the board’s actions saying, they are only democratically putting up a plea before
the court.
“We have abided by whatever was decided as per the law of the land. Before the COA exited, they also said few things are not practical like the conflict of interest issue. So if there are some administrative difficulties we are facing, we can always represent. It is ultimately the decision of the court that will prevail,” he tells Hindustan Times.
“The reason the case dragged on for three years, longer than it should have, was because the BCCI and its various components were objecting to different aspects. When a second final judgment has come, there is no question of going back and amending it,” argues Sankaranarayanan.
“In principle, it’s against the spirit of Lodha reforms. But it’s on the Supreme Court to take a call. The constitution has been approved by the court,” says COA member Ravindra Thodge.
Cut through the legal jargon and the proposed amendments seek more liberties. Another proposal pitched for experience to represent BCCI at the International Cricket Council (ICC). This amendment would clear decks for the return of N Srinivasan—disqualified by the new constitution because he is over 70, in the ICC boardroom.
Dhumal says the proposal is not about Srinivasan. “This is not the only time when BCCI will need someone to represent them at the ICC. It is for all times to come. So don’t see it in context of any individual. It has to be understood in the larger interest of the game and BCCI. We have lost a lot of ground as far as ICC is concerned in the last three years. We need to regain that and it would be in the best interest of world cricket,” he opines.
SC TO INTERVENE
BCCI’s attempt to change the reforms would boil down to getting the Supreme Court to alter Rule 45 of the constitution which states: “Any such amendment will not be given effect to without the leave of the Honourable Supreme Court.”
BCCI wants to regain its autonomy to make any future amendments with a threefourths majority.
“The constitution currently says that any amendment can be made only after the leave of the court. They have sought an amendment to that. If the court accepts that, it will be clear which way the court is thinking,” says former BCCI legal committee member, Abhay Apte.
“If the court agrees with us and approves it, we will be happy. If not, we will have to go by whatever is agreed upon,” says Dhumal.
The irony though cannot be missed that Ganguly, to complete his full term has to undo the same Lodha reforms that facilitated him getting the post.
IT CONTAINED A DRAFT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD SHAKE UP THE GOVERNANCE MODEL APPROVED BY THE COURT