The Supreme Court of India has issued a show-cause notice to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) demanding the reasons that have delayed the implementation of Lodha reforms. The apex court also demanded that the Committee of Administrators draft a new constitution for the Indian board.
The BCCI has once again drawn flak from the Supreme Court for not implementing the Lodha reforms as per the apex court's ruling. The court this time issued a notice to the trio of CK Khanna, the acting President of BCCI, secretary Amitabh Chaudhary, and treasurer Anirudh Chaudhry to explain the reasons for the delay in the implementation of the reforms.
The Supreme Court has also demanded that the Committee of Administrators draft a new BCCI constitution and present it before the court for their approval. Moreover, the court has asked the trio to be present for the next hearing on the matter on September 19.
The show-cause notice was issued by the court after the CoA submitted the report of facing hindrances in the implementation of the Lodha reforms on August 16 and had requested the apex court to dismiss the top-brass of the Indian board.
"We will send in our respective replies to the apex court, telling them why exactly there has been a delay," a BCCI official told Cricketnext on conditions of anonymity.
Gopal Subramanium, assisting the court as an impartial adviser, pulled up the trio of CK Khanna, Amitabh Chaudhary, and Anirudh Chaudhry for delaying the implementation of the Lodha reforms.
In the recent status report, the CoA has requested the apex court handed the governance, management and administration" of the BCCI to them while suggesting the inception of a professional group to run the board.
"...it is only fair that the current office-bearers be treated in the same manner because a further period of six months have elapsed since the said office-bearers submitted their undertakings and reforms mandated by Hon'ble Court have still not been implemented.
"It is clear that current office-bearers are not in position to make good on their undertakings and ensure that reforms mandated by this Hon'ble Court is implemented."
The Supreme Court appointed CoA also lashed out at the BCCI for not letting CEO Rahul Johri attend the Special General Meeting (SPG) on July 26 as opposed to the court's order dated July 24th. Further, the CoA also accused the BCCI of using the apex court's etc term to their advantage and suggesting reforms that go against the fundamental core of reforms suggested by the Supreme Court.
“First, the CEO of BCCI as well as the administrative staff including the legal team was asked to leave the meeting on the basis that they are not office bearers. Secondly, the totally neutral expression ‘etc’ was treated as an excuse to bring in a series of issues aimed at unravelling the fundamental core of the reforms mandated by this Hon’ble Court including disqualification of office bearers, Constitution of apex Council, clear demarcation of functions, powers, duties and obligations between professional management and Apex Council, etc,” the report stated.
“Even fundamental issues such as conflict of interest rules and appointment of Ombudsman were not implemented during the SGM held on July 26, 2017. It is obvious that the whole idea was to stonewall the fundamental core of reforms mandated by this Hon’ble Court and make the same a dead letter.
“It appears that the intention was also to ensure that the Committee of Administrators would not receive a first-hand account of the proceedings during the SGM and hence the CEO of BCCI and other administrative staff including the legal team were asked to leave the meeting,” the report said.
“The CEO was asked to leave despite clear directions from the CoA to the effect that the CEO shall be entitled to attend every SGM and other meetings of the BCCI. The office bearers of the BCCI, instead of reprimanding the constituent members who were suggesting that BCCI officials including the CEO leave the meeting, did absolutely nothing.”
The CoA further blamed the BCCI for not solving the conflict of interest issue and contempt of court for not adopting the Lodha reforms.