The Supreme Court yesterday took a strong stand against the push-back from cricket associations on the Lodha panel recommendations. Trashing the concerns put forward, the Bench also said that it would force the BCCI to implement all recommendations until the Parliament passes a law to the effect.
Cricbuzzppearing for the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA), advocate Datar questioned the court's overreach after the committee had begun with the betting and spot-fixing issues, but had now gone into reforming the entire cricketing structure of the nation. "This is like a doctor detecting a tumour in a body and then, while removing it, slashing and bruising the entire body," Datar said, reported .
Taking a strong stand to the remark, the Bench, comprising of Chief Justice T S Thakur and F M I Kalifulla, said, "Spot-fixing and betting were only symptoms of a dreaded disease deep inside the BCCI. That is why the Lodha panel was set up to diagnose the disease and suggest remedial measures. It has now suggested remedial measures.”
Datar earlier questioned the SC's move to force reforms in a private association pointing out that it would force all the associate bodies to change their rules to maintain their membership of the BCCI. The bench responded by asking, "Can you tell which of the Lodha panel recommendations are perverse and unimplementable? All of you agreed that the recommendations are good, well-meaning and made in good faith. What is the harm in implementing them? If the recommendations are not outrageous, then let them be implemented," it said.
Hinting at sweeping reforms across the sports landscape, the bench said, "We have not shut our door for reforms in those associations. But cricket has altogether a different dimension in India. That is why we took up the issue and entrusted Justice R M Lodha panel to suggest reforms."
The Bench also added that the reforms would stay in place until Parliamentary action, saying, "Our directions for implementation of reforms in the BCCI will remain in force till Parliament enacts a legislation. We will say so in our judgment."
Taking a further swipe at septuagenarians occupying crucial posts, the Bench said, "Are you a Vedic society where age is no impediment to chanting mantras or discussing religious philosophy?" The SC asked, "Why should the age limit be 70 years and not 50 years? If you want to accommodate veterans and provide them with facilities, then have an advisory committee," reported Cricbuzz.