List of Contents
Source: The post is based on the article “After BCCI vs Supreme Court, it’s back to status quo” published in the Indian Express on 16th September 2022.
Syllabus: GS 2 – Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial bodies.
Relevance: About the recent amendment to BCCI Constitution.
News: Recently, the Supreme Court approved the amendments proposed to the BCCI constitution to give office bearers longer terms.
What are the recent modifications done by the court to BCCI Constitution?
|Read here: BCCI office-bearers can have two terms before cool-off period|
What are the concerns associated with the recent judgement?
1) The original 2016 SC order, based on the Justice RM Lodha committee recommendations, wanted the office-bearers to take a mandatory break after every three-year term. According to Justice RM Lodha, the “cooling off period clause” was “the most important pillar of our report as far as governance and structure of BCCI is concerned” to check monopolies and enforce antitrust regulations.
But, with the current judgement, the office-bearers can remain in a state body and the BCCI together for an unbroken stint of 12 years.
2) There have been three different cooling-off periods — three, six and 12 years — in three SC orders since 2016. FIFA’s ultimatum to ban Indian football because of recent court interference might make the judges sceptical about wading into sporting arenas.
3) State units continued to be run as private fiefdoms, and cricketing controversies didn’t quite end. For instance, Six years later, the original order of the Supreme Court hadn’t gotten implemented by the BCCI.
|Must read: SC alters Lodha’s BCCI proposals|