- After accepting the Justice Lodha committee’s recommendations, the Supreme Court has now extended some concessions to those aggrieved by the rigorous rules, which aimed to revamp cricket administration in the country.
2. The court said that it is a pragmatic modification rather than a significant climbdown.
3. The most significant change concerns the cooling-off period prescribed for office bearers before they are allowed to contest for a subsequent term.
4. The logic behind the cooling-off period is that office bearers should not be given lengthy tenures that enable them to establish personal fiefdoms.
5. The panel viewed that every office-bearers of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, in the national board or in a state association, should have three-year terms.
6. Contrary to this, the court has now allowed two three-year terms that is,tenure of six years-before the mandatory break kicks in.
7. The argument against this is that the experience and knowledge that an office-bearer gains over three years should not be frittered away and a second term could help consolidate such learning’s.
8. The Bench has accepted the logic behind this and chosen to defer the cooling-off period until she completes two terms.
9. The panel had also favoured the ‘one State, one vote’ norm.
10. This means that an association representing a State alone should be recognized as a voting member of the BCCI, while associations representing a region within a State or entities that do not represent a territory should not have the same vote or status.
11. The court has accepted the reasoning that associations that had contributed significantly to Indian cricket need not be stripped of their full membership.
12. Judicial intervention has been immensely helpful in making cricket administration more efficient and professional, and addressing the credibility deficit of recent times.