Are you refusing to be reformed?, SC asks BCCI
The Supreme Court on Friday slammed the BCCI for its stand that any judicial intervention in their daily matters will weaken their autonomy. The apex court also questioned the board’s attitude towards the reforms put forward by the Lodha committee by asking whether it is “refusing to be reformed”.
The hearing before the Bench of Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur and F M I Kalifulla on Friday once again witnessed a face-off between the apex court and the BCCI. The Board of Control for Cricket in India has been resisting the reforms put forward by the Justice R M Lodha committee, and it once again came to the fore on Friday with the board’s counsel arguing that any judicial intervention will undermine the cricket governing body’s autonomy.
“This is a private body and can arrange it matters in whatever way it wants. Memberships are part of internal management. In the case of complaints, approach the Registrar, Co-operative Societies or the police station or the court. There has been no instance of malfeasance to trigger interference which will change the very character and functioning of the Board,” Mr. Venugopal submitted, reported the Hindu.
The court shot back at the counsel asking whether the body is refusing to be reformed.
“Every single penny you hold in trust is for the benefit of the game and for those who play and for the millions of cricket lovers who pay you to watch the game... Are you not accountable to them? Are you refusing to be reformed?,” Chief Justice Thakur asked.
The court also added that the Lodha committee recommendations were not meant to hamper the board’s autonomy, but were to help the body perform its public function in the best way.
“The committee does not take away your powers, money or authority... But here you say you are happy the way you are. You say you don't want to reform...” Chief Justice Thakur said, reported the Hindu.
The next hearing on the matter will take place on April 12.
Comments
Sign up or log in to your account to leave comments and reactions
0 Comments