On Monday, the Supreme Court slammed BCCI for “monopolizing” the game of cricket in India and said that many young players who aspire to become the next Dhoni or Kohli are not given proper chances if the cricket body is not happy with them.
A bench which was headed by CJ TS Thakur stated, “Several youngsters in the country want to make their career in cricket and want to be Dhonis and Kohlis due to the glamour and glitz associated with it. They do not get equal opportunity if they are not on the right side of the BCCI. Sometimes they are prevented by the people at the helm of affairs.”
Gopal Subramanium, the senior lawyer, has been appointed by the SC as amicus curiae in order to find out ways to implement recommendations of Justice RM Lodha committee which has talked about the need of bringing structural reforms on a large scale. The BCCI and other cricketing boards have been opposing these reforms. Justice FMI Kalifulla was also a part of this bench and the bench criticized BCCI for working in a manner which seems like a “prohibitory regime and monopolizing cricket”, as everyone needs its permission to play cricket.
The bench stated, “You (BCCI) are running a prohibitory regime which is spread across the country. If a player has to play cricket he has to be with you. You have complete monopoly. You have monopoly over members and you prevent people from becoming members.”
The bench further added, “Suppose a state from North East wants to be a member in BCCI. You are not allowing it to become a member because your writ lies there also. You don’t want to give them equal opportunity. You have complete monopoly over Team India because you select them and don’t want to give the right to anyone else. We need to balance things.”
The apex court wondered as to what problem anyone has if membership is opened to other states and policy of one state-one vote is implemented, as recommended by Lodha committee.
The bench made it clear to Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA), which has expressed its reservations to one state-one vote formula that it is not concerned with any state associations.
“We make it clear that we are not concerned with any state cricket associations but if they want to associate with BCCI, then they have to reform themselves. You will have to fall in line and reform yourselves or you will lose your membership,” the bench said.
The Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA) was also told very clearly that court is not at all concerned with any state cricket body. The TNCA lawyer Arvind Dattar said, “The recommendation will create inequality rather than equality. It will promote inequality among equals.”
In its response, the court said, “When ICC accepts the principle of one country-one vote irrespective of population, then why can’t the similar formula of one state-one vote work for BCCI. It will result in equality to play cricket.”
The court further said that it has already made it clear earlier also that if anybody or any organization is doing a public duty, then it has to bear some responsibilities and provide everyone equal opportunity.
The court also criticized the Baroda Cricket Association as it is also standing against the recommendations of Lodha committee which say that every cricket body associated with BCCI needs to make reforms in itself. The court said, “If any cricket club or association wants to do anything, we are least bothered. We are not here to reform every cricketing club. But if any institution which is discharging public duty like BCCI, then any organization or association associated with it will have to reform itself.”
Baroda cricket association was represented by senior lawyer Kapil Sibal. He said, “Every association has its own set of rules and bye laws which can’t be changed. Do we all who constitute BCCI have to change our laws, it can’t be.” He also said that if something wrong is done by the board, then the associations can’t be held responsible for that.
Sibal further added, “Even in present structure in BCCI, equal representation is given to all the zones. There is nothing like undue or undemocratic (favour)”.
Earlier the Baroda Cricket Association has expressed its fear in front of court that if one state-one vote is implemented, it will result in “enormous politics”.
The impact of one state-one vote will be more on Gujarat and Maharashtra as these two states have three and four cricket associations respectively and if this policy is imposed, they will have only one permanent member each in BCCI. The smaller states like Manipur and Mizoram will be benefitted with this policy; however, cricket is not very famous there.
The court has also made an observation on April 13 that government just needs to make a law in the Parliament and it can take over all the duties related to cricket.
Mumbai’s famous Cricket Club of India (CCI) also felt the heat when SC asked some tough questions regarding its opposition to recommendations of Lodha committee.