Lodha committee could come down hard on the BCCI president’s votes
The committee may set an age-limit for BCCI’s senior office-bearers, particularly those aspiring to become president
The discerning among cricket administrators, including a handful of influential former office-bearers of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), say that Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha has not finished his job yet insofar as recommending to the BCCI the best practices and structural reforms to run the sport.
A very senior functionary and former president of the BCCI requesting anonymity said: “This (suspending Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals for two years from IPL and Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra from all cricket activities) is only a slap on the wrist.
This is only 25 per cent of the blow; the big blow is yet to come. The Lodha committee is going to come hard on some of the clauses in the Memorandum and Rules and Regulations (MRR) and suggest structural reforms.’’
The BCCI’s MRR has been amended a number of times and some would say it was ‘tinkered with’ to allow BCCI officials to have commercial interest in the IPL and Champions League T20. The Supreme Court struck down the relevant clause with Justices T.S. Thakur and Ibrahim Kalifullah passing a scathing remark that the particular amendment of the rule was the “true villain” and it had perpetuated the conflict of interest.
The Supreme Court has asked the three-member committee, comprising Justices R.M. Lodha, Ashok Bhan and R.V. Raveendran, to examine and make suitable recommendations to the BCCI for such reforms in its practices and procedures and such amendments in the MRR. Representatives of the member units of the BCCI are at their wits’ end with the circumstances created by the IPL corruption fiasco, following betting, spot and match-fixing allegations.
The MMR has 37 rules from interpretation of rules to arbitration and among the most protected rule is the powers enjoyed by the president and the other three principal office-bearers — secretary, jt. secretary and treasurer.
Few members would have issues with the president’s approval being obtained before the national team is made public, but there has been disapproving whispers of the president being given the privilege to vote twice at annual general and special general meetings.
As per rule 22 (voting at AGMs and SGMs): “At the annual general meeting/special general meeting each member shall have one vote. The chairman (president) of the meeting shall have one vote which shall be in addition to the casting vote as provided in clause 21 (casting vote or drawing lots).”Moreover, in the event of two representatives from the same member unit showing up at working committee meetings, AGMs or SGMs, the president has the last word.
At the last AGM and election in Chennai, Shivlal Yadav (elected by the house as chairman) ruled that the president of the Baroda Cricket Association, Samarjitsinh Gaekwad, was the right representative and allowed him to attend the AGM and vote; recently president Jagmohan Dalmiya chose the rival group representative Rakesh Parikh to attend the working committee meeting in Kolkata. It was perhaps the first instance that the president of a State association had to face such a humiliation.
The burning issue, though, is why the president should be allowed an ordinary vote (not casting) if he’s not representing his State association.
“He (Dalmiya) was the bowler, umpire and match referee,” said Sharad Pawar after his defeat against Haryana’s Ranbir Singh in the 2004 elections. Then Dalmiya did not allow Maharashtra Cricket Association to attend the AGM and thereafter he used his two votes (chairman’s vote and casting vote) to ensure a 16-15 victory for Ranbir Singh. Dalmiya had virtually controlled four votes — Cricket Association of Bengal, National Cricket Club, chairman’s vote and casting vote.
“I am sure Justice Lodha and his committee would look at this aspect of the president enjoying two votes as chairman of the AGM and SGM,” observed the former BCCI functionary, still being consulted by the present BCCI set up on important matters.Another game-changing amendment that could be proposed is the age-limit for senior office-bearers, particularly those aspiring to become president.
There has been reports of the Lodha Committee finding Dalmiya “incoherent and incomprehensible” and seeking the help of his son at a recent meeting between them in Kolkata.
A newspaper report quoted Justice Lodha as saying: “If this is the physical and mental condition of the BCCI president at present, did those who elected him three months back not know about this? If the physical and mental status of the president has deteriorated so much in recent times, then who is running the affairs of the richest cricket body.”
One cannot rule out the possibility of the Lodha Committee setting an age limit of 70; and should the BCCI agree to this proposal, N. Srinivasan would not be in a position to harbour hopes of becoming the BCCI president again.-