<p>The Board of Control for Cricket in India on Tuesday claimed the Supreme Court that the cooling-off period will deprive the sport of worthy administrators and the country cannot afford to lose experienced individuals who can take the sport to new heights.</p>.<p>Appearing for the BCCI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hima Kohli that as the constitution exists today, there is a cooling-off period and if a person is an office bearer of state cricket association for one term and BCCI for one term, then that person would have to go for cooling off.</p>.<p>The bench asked Mehta if he was saying the cooling off period will be only for two terms in BCCI and if tenure in state cricket associations would not be considered.</p>.<p>Referring to the proposed amendments, Mehta said the concern of the court that no one should be perennially in charge is taken care of and also the experience gathered at state associations is not wasted.</p>.<p>On the aspect of disqualification, Mehta said there are several persons who have contributed to cricket but they are also working in furtherance of other games.</p>.<p>“I don’t want to take names, but one of the finest cricketers is now doing tremendous service in golf,” he said, also contending the restriction of 70 years should also go away.</p>.<p>“Do not tell us people in cricket Australia or ECB, there are people over 70 years," the bench said, asking why can't younger people be allowed over there.</p>.<p>The court also said, "70 years is old age, though there are doctors and lawyers who are still doing well after 70 years, but why having people over 70 years."</p>.<p>Mehta, for his part, said ICC has no age restriction.</p>.<p>Citing the constitution, the bench also asked if a person is an office-bearer of another sports association, then that person should not be part of the cricket association. “If you want to be in cricket, then focus on cricket…the same person should not be there at more than one place…”, the bench orally said.</p>.<p>The court would again take up on Wednesday the plea by the BCCI to amend its constitution concerning the tenure of its office bearers including its president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah by doing away with the mandatory cooling-off period between tenures of office bearers across state cricket associations and the BCCI.</p>
<p>The Board of Control for Cricket in India on Tuesday claimed the Supreme Court that the cooling-off period will deprive the sport of worthy administrators and the country cannot afford to lose experienced individuals who can take the sport to new heights.</p>.<p>Appearing for the BCCI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hima Kohli that as the constitution exists today, there is a cooling-off period and if a person is an office bearer of state cricket association for one term and BCCI for one term, then that person would have to go for cooling off.</p>.<p>The bench asked Mehta if he was saying the cooling off period will be only for two terms in BCCI and if tenure in state cricket associations would not be considered.</p>.<p>Referring to the proposed amendments, Mehta said the concern of the court that no one should be perennially in charge is taken care of and also the experience gathered at state associations is not wasted.</p>.<p>On the aspect of disqualification, Mehta said there are several persons who have contributed to cricket but they are also working in furtherance of other games.</p>.<p>“I don’t want to take names, but one of the finest cricketers is now doing tremendous service in golf,” he said, also contending the restriction of 70 years should also go away.</p>.<p>“Do not tell us people in cricket Australia or ECB, there are people over 70 years," the bench said, asking why can't younger people be allowed over there.</p>.<p>The court also said, "70 years is old age, though there are doctors and lawyers who are still doing well after 70 years, but why having people over 70 years."</p>.<p>Mehta, for his part, said ICC has no age restriction.</p>.<p>Citing the constitution, the bench also asked if a person is an office-bearer of another sports association, then that person should not be part of the cricket association. “If you want to be in cricket, then focus on cricket…the same person should not be there at more than one place…”, the bench orally said.</p>.<p>The court would again take up on Wednesday the plea by the BCCI to amend its constitution concerning the tenure of its office bearers including its president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah by doing away with the mandatory cooling-off period between tenures of office bearers across state cricket associations and the BCCI.</p>
