JOIN US BCCI faced scathing criticism for maintaining that any judicial interference in its functioning would compromise its autonomy, with the Supreme Court saying the cash-rich sports body was resisting recommendations to reform and make its working “transparent and visible”.
The apex court also expressed its displeasure over BCCI’s stand that being a private and autonomous body, it cannot accommodate a nominee of CAG in it as suggested by the Justice RM Lodha panel on the ground that it would be derecognised from the International Cricket Council.
“You are discharging public function... how best your functioning can be improved? It has to be transparent and visible .. the way you are doing (discharging your function) and how you are doing,” a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice F M I Kalifulla said.
Taking note of the submission made by BCCI counsel K K Venugopal, the bench said “what we understand is that you are suggesting that I am answerable to Registrar of Societies. I will be accountable only to Registrar of Societies. I will be amenable to criminal law but I will not reform. Don’t ask me to reform. Is it possible?
“What have you done? We have seen the allegations of match fixing and betting. You have no control over these. But you give money in crores. The Lodha committee has said something. The effort is to reform the BCCI.
“You are dealing with hundreds of crores of rupees. Do you say that you have complete immunity over it and you can’t be questioned? Do you say that you can’t be questioned how you spend hundreds of crores of rupees if not thousands that you collect from the public. Can we record that statement,” the bench observed.
Venugopal replied in affirmative to the bench’s suggestion that collection of funds by selling tickets and through advertisements, BCCI has total control over it and it cannot be questioned.
The bench said it was going into the issue but made it clear that it was not comparing BCCI with other sporting associations.
The bench was also not happy with the apprehension expressed by BCCI that presence of the government nominee or that of CAG will violate ICC rules and attract derecognition.
“How the presence of government nominee or CAG would violate ICC rules and attract derecognition? You are opposing the nominee of the CAG on the board as it would make you vulnerable to derecognition, but you are all advocating involvement of ministers and bureaucrats. Does it not create government influence or presence,” the bench asked.
BCCI said instead of following all the recommendations, “let us see whether there is another way” the Board can be reformed.