On tough day in court, ray of hope
LODHA PANEL No leniency from SC but court hints it may relook ‘one state, one vote’ recommendation
SENIOR ADVOCATE KK VENUGOPAL ARGUED THAT GIVING EACH STATE EQUAL REPRESENTATION AND VOTING RIGHT... IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN A SITUATION WHERE STATES... WILL ABUSE THEIR VOTING RIGHT
NEW DELHI: The Apex court pulled up the BCCI on Thursday but gave a glimpse of hope on the key recommendation by the Justice RM Lodha committee that one state will be eligible for only one vote even if there are many associations. Maharashtra has four voting units, Gujarat has three and West Bengal has two, but the Lodha panel’s ‘One state, One vote’ recommendation will allow only one body to remain a voting member.
A bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice FMI Kalifulla was hearing the BCCI’s reply to the recommendations as well as interventions filed by some state associations expressing their difficulty in complying with the directives to bring in transparency in the Board’s functioning.
UNEVEN TURF
“Is it logical? Can you compare Bihar or other state’s one vote with Sikkim or Manipur? Gujarat and Maharashtra have seven votes. At least some cricketing activities are happening over there. Imagine Tripura or Nagaland, where no cricket activity is happening, but these seven states can come together and set a lobby,” Justice Thakur wondered at the hearing.
The bench by itself made this observation, having rejected the BCCI argument on this issue earlier during the hearing.
It has to be seen in the next hearing on March 18 whether the court considers cricketing boundaries or territorial boundaries before deciding whether or not to suggest to the Lodha committee to reconsider this particular recommendation which is being opposed by the BCCI.
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Baroda Cricket Association, urged the bench to consider cricketing rather than territorial boundaries. Senior lawyer Dushyant Dave, representing suspended IPL team CSK, and told the bench that he was from Baroda and the BCA was formed in the 1930s but it still didn’t have its own cricket stadium. “The Baroda Cricket Association plays cricket at a private stadium owned by Reliance,” he added.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal argued that giving each state equal representation and voting right, irrespective of the level of cricketing activity in that state, is likely to result in a situation where states with little or no cricketing activity will abuse their voting right.
To buttress his argument he cited the Fifa scandal where countries with little or less football activity were allegedly bribed by Fifa officials to vote in a particular manner. But the bench was not convinced with this argument. “After how many years did this corruption case come to light? Have been any earlier cases of corruption? It happened in 50-100 years. It can’t be an example,” said Justice Thakur.