Mistake if everyone interested in taking us through dark maze: SC tells BCCI
The Supreme Court told the BCCI and the attorney general that their implementation of the Lodha panel report won’t be slowed down. It was however ready to hear fresh arguments against it.cricket Updated: Jan 24, 2017 22:18 IST
The Supreme Court made it clear on Tuesday it will not hold back the implementation of the Justice RM Lodha Committee report to reform the Indian cricket Board’s administration. It told the BCCI and the attorney general that any bid to slow down the process won’t work.
The apex court asked BCCI to give names of candidates to be included in the panel of administrators to be appointed, but the hearing witnessed many interesting exchanges in the court. These were the most interesting exchanges during the hearing on Tuesday. (BCCI vs Lodha Panel)
The attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi, said the government was considering a law or executive order to regulate the functioning of national sports bodies and wanted the court to postpone naming the BCCI administrators.
“We are going to have a holistic view. Sports associations should have some autonomy. We are looking at a larger picture.”
The apex court said there was no question of postponing implementation.
“We are not, why we should keep it in abeyance? This case has to move on both ways, the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee have to be implemented and simultaneously we will hear your grievance.”
Justice Dipak Mishra, heading the three-judge bench, wasn’t amused when Sibal and other lawyers said the court should be supportive while appointing the administrators.
“If everyone is interested in taking us through a dark maze, he is mistaken.”
Sibal wanted the court to allow the BCCI to send a seasoned official for the International Cricket Council (ICC) meeting in February.
“We are going to lose if our share comes down. Those who are nominated must be experienced in negotiation. We may lose Rs 3,000 crore.”
The amicus curiae said an impression has gained ground that the court order of July 18, 2016 could be re-examined.
“An impression is going out in the case that judgement (July 18) and directions (Jan 2) are being re-opened.”
The court said it wrong to assume that.
“Once we pen down an order, if one line is changed, why should such an impression go?”