Supreme Court: In furtherance of the order dated 18.07.2016, where the Court, while accepting the report submitted by Justice Lodha Committee and the recommendations made therein, had requested the Committee to supervise the transition from the old to the new system in the wake of the reforms proposed by the Committee, the Court noticed that in the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee, the BCCI has been non-cooperative in its attitude.

BCCI has, despite directions issued by the Committee, released in favour of the State Cricket Associations substantial amounts running into crores of rupees without the permission of Justice Lodha Committee and in defiance of the direction issued by it. The Court said that the BCCI could and indeed ought to have avoided the disbursement of such a huge amount while Justice Lodha Committee was still examining the need for formulating a Disbursement Policy. Upon the argument advanced by Kapil Sibal, appearing for BCCI that the reason for the non-adoption of the Memorandum of Association (MOA) proposed by Justice Lodha Committee is the reluctance of the State Associations in subscribing to the same, the Court said that If that be the position, there is no reason why the State Associations that are opposed to the reforms suggested by Justice Lodha Committee and accepted by this Court should either expect or draw any benefit from the release of grants by the BCCI.

Listing the matter on 17.10.2016, the bench of T.S. Thakur, CJ and A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ, directed that no further amount shall be disbursed by the BCCI or its Working Committee to any State Association except where the State Association concerned passes a proper resolution to the effect that it is agreeable to undertake and to support the reforms as proposed and accepted by this Court in letter and spirit.  The Court also asked Anurag Thakur, President of the BCCI to file a personal affidavit whether he had asked the CEO of the ICC to state that the appointment of Justice Lodha Committee was tantamount to Government interference in the working of the BCCI. [Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1125, decided on 07.10.2016]


Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.