In the One State-One Vote clause certain modifications can be made as per observations from the bench as there are associations which are more than hundred years old and have been contributing to the game and their cases need a re-look. But the focus remains on finalising new constitution. The voting right of member units have been an issue of concern and Justice Chandrachud and Justice Khanwilkar — both members of the Cricket Club of India — said it doesn’t matter if the CCI has voting rights or not.
Speaking on the eligibility criteria to become national selectors, Justice Khanwilkar had spoken about the runs scored as a criterion, but the defence said that some of the best coaches have never played cricket (at the top level). The bench also debated taking away full membership of universities which they feel used to be a presence in cricket during the 1970s in Ranji Trophy. The 70-year age-cap was also discussed.
CricketNext had reported that certain members in the board had requested for conditional cooling off and Justice Chandrachud orally observed that after a tenure in a particular position, the office-bearer may contest for another post without needing to go for cooling off.
“What we are looking at is a situation wherein a person who is the president, has to go into cooling-off if he is nominated again for the same post. But in case of change of position, there shouldn’t be a need for cooling-off as continuity is also an important factor in functioning of the board,” an official had explained.
ASG Tushar Mehta for Haryana and Maharashtra also objected to the ban on ministers in BCCI saying these people have served the country for decades and the court will do them serious injustice if they are banned.
The bench also heard submissions towards the 70-year age-cap and admitted to the submission of having five selectors from the present three and even allowing first-class experience of minimum 35 first-class matches as compared to the earlier order wherein a national selector needed to have played Test cricket for the country.
Even as the Supreme Court resumed hearing the BCCI matter on Thursday, the Committee of Administrators had filed a ninth status report and made scathing remarks against board office-bearers.
The report elaborated on numerous efforts made by the BCCI officials to hamper the smooth implementation of the Lodha reforms that the apex court had passed in an order in 2016. The status report was filed by the two-member committee — comprising of Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji — on Monday.
bcciBCCI COABCCI vs LodhaBoard of Control for Cricket in IndiaCOACooling OffDipak MisraJustice AM KhanwilkarJustice DY ChandrachudOne State-One Votesupreme court
First Published: July 5, 2018, 3:37 PM IST