Fall in line, or we'll make you- SC tells BCCI

The Lodha committee report recommended a cooling-off period between successive terms for top officials.

It suggested that ministers and government servants cannot occupy BCCI posts and wanted professionals under a chief executive officer to run the board's day-to-day activity.

Further, the report wanted the BCCI to be brought under the Right to Information Act (RTI) Act, which would allow citizens to access Board's information.

Supreme Court told the BCCI that it was happy with Lodha panel recommendations and that it wanted them implemented.

SC Chief Justice Thakur said, if BCCI had difficulty in implementing, they would have Lodha committee implement it for them.

The court asked BCCI to come back by March 3 to let it know about the execution of all structural changes recommended by the committee.

'One member, one vote' suggestion was among the many sweeping recommendations proposed by the Lodha panel.

This meant, only cricketing bodies representing a state would have full membership and voting rights in the BCCI.

For instance, if a state (like Maharashtra or Gujarat) has three associations, one of them will have full voting rights while the other two will be relegated to associate members.

According to BCCI's affidavit, which disclosed details of funds allotted to state bodies in the last five years, atleast 11 states had not received any BCCI funds.

In this light, SC criticized BCCI for the way it distributed funds to its affiliated-units.

The court further said that BCCI had done nothing to develop the game and that its members created a "mutually benefit society."

Continuing arguments over Lodha recommendations, BCCI said that because of its status as a trust, it was beyond the purview of Supreme Court.

BCCI's counsel cited Article 19 (C) of Indian Constitution, which allows formation of associations/unions, as one of the reasons why SC could not interfere in BCCI's functioning.

The court responded by asking the BCCI whether it was "refusing to be reformed".

Supreme Court said that BCCI was not a private entity and is accountable and answerable like any other public body.

The bench headed by Chief Justice T.S. Thakur said that BCCI is a trustee of the game and that its activities must inspire confidence.

Apex court's observations came as it was hearing objections against Lodha committee recommendations, made by BCCI and state associations.

The two-judge bench of SC, made of Chief Justice Thakur and Justice Kalifulla ordered the BCCI to adopt the one-state-one-vote policy.

The recommendation of including a CAG member in the BCCI governing council was accepted.

It rejected inclusion of a minister in BCCI, and ordered an age cap of 70 for its members.

BCCI has been given 6 months to implement these changes.

Former cricketers Sunil Gavaskar and Kapil Dev have raised their concern over the recommendations given by Lodha Panel for BCCI.

Gavaskar said that the three year term for an administrator was short and also raised questions over the cooling-off period.

Kapil Dev seconded Gavaskar's opinion and also raised concerns over 'one state, one vote' system. However, he welcomed the age cap for selectors.

Supreme Court of India has told the BCCI to fall in line or the court will have to do it.

Chief Justice of India T S Thakur said that BCCI should follow the Lodha panel recommendations and should not defy court orders.

The SC has given BCCI time till October 6 to explain themselves over non-compliance of orders.