E-Paper
Katju move reveals BCCI intentions
NEW DELHI: The Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) decision to form a panel headed by Justice Markandey Katju points to the sport body’s continued stubbornness
NEW DELHI: The Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) decision to form a panel headed by Justice Markandey Katju points to the sport body’s continued stubbornness in refusing to accept the Supreme Court’s judgment directing it to reform itself and make its functioning more transparent.
Justice Katju’s report given to the BCCI on Sunday advising it to file a review on various grounds including the one that the body is private and not public is a futile exercise because the top court has rejected this argument, not once but twice.
SC’s January 2015 verdict, under which Justice RM Lodha committee was constituted, declared that BCCI despite not being a State is still amenable to court’s jurisdiction since it performed important public functions. SC also observed that the BCCI discharges its duties as “public authority” by using the name India for the team which represents it.
The judgment was a scathing attack on BCCI’s functioning. Two-fold directions were given to Justice Lodha panel – comprising two other retired SC judges Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice RV Raveendran. One was to decide on how to punish those found involved in the match-fixing allegations during IPL-6 and second to suggest reforms in BCCI.
It is the second limb of the judgment, which is bothering the cricket body. A ruling that BCCI is a public body opens its action to judicial review. It paves way for the government to bring it under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a move BCCI is opposed to.
With the verdict the board’s financial accounts can also come under public scrutiny. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be filed in future asking courts to ask BCCI and state cricket bodies affiliated to it to explain their spending, like any other government department.
BCCI’s attempt to wriggle out of the SC judgment too fell flat when the top court on July 18 ordered it to implement Justice Lodha’s recommendations to overhaul the cricket administration. The verdict came at the end of a long hearing spanning over one-and-a-half years. BCCI and the state associations argued against panel’s suggestions vehemently.
In return, however, the SC chided them for their belligerent stance in the court against the change. A bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice FMI Kalifulla (now retired) advised the BCCI to let go of its “ego” to help usher in long-need reform for the sake of the game’s spirit.
Before it delivered the judgment, the CJI had during the course of hearing made it clear to the BCCI that it was discharging public functions and court can direct it to reform through judicial orders unless it reforms itself on its own. It had rejected the plea by state bodies that the law or rules governing them cannot be changed through judicial orders.
Justice Lodha panel has already reiterated that its recommendations on reforming India’s cricket board are “final and binding.” It has refused to interact with Justice Katju whose appointment has itself come under question. Article 124(7) of the Constitution says: “No person who has held office as a judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India.”
