Attorney General asks SC to revise its previous order in the BCCI case

The Supreme Court’s order that asked the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to follow Lodha Committee’s suggested reforms has been challenged by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi the representative of the Central government. The apex court heard the case yesterday and Rohatgi put up a request for the decision to be reconsidered which led to the sacking of the top brass of the board.

He was there because the matter affected the Ministry of Railways, the Indian armed forces as well as all the Universities since they are a part of Indian domestic cricket, are full members, have teams and representatives as well but the previous order has put them in a fix as well. After the hearing, he spoke to Indian Express and said, there are ways in which a Supreme Court order can be “revised or removed”.

“Today I appeared in the BCCI matter for the first time on behalf of three organizations. It was not generally the Government of India, but it was essentially the Ministry of Railways, the tri-services of the armed forces and the association of Indian Universities. All these three bodies are the constituents of the BCCI, they are three out of the 30 full members. They have a say in the affairs of BCCI and they continue to do so over the last 50 years. These bodies promote cricket, they have academies, they give job to cricketers and they have stadiums. In one of the orders passed by the SC in the BCCI case, these three.

“In one of the orders passed by the SC in the BCCI case, these three organisations have been downgraded, their full membership has been taken away and their invaluable vote in the affairs of the BCCI has been taken away. In the court today, I made submissions that our vote cannot be taken away and neither our status be downgraded, I also made it clear to the court that I have no love for the BCCI, I mean my clients. We are only concerned with the restoration of these two items the two bodies and the association of universities want.” Rohatgi said.

Also read- Yuvraj Singh trolls Ravichandran Ashwin for photo bombing

He also mentioned that all of his three clients are yet to receive a notice from the SC which would convey to them that their full membership has been taken away and they are just associate members now on. “As far as the Association of Universities is concerned the court didn’t send a notice to them, actually notices have not be sent to others whose rights have been taken away. This six months difference (from the time of the order) is not a mountain that can’t be crossed. If a mistake has been made by the court or anybody else there is a process to correct it. Supreme Court is the final court, it is the apex court and it has all right. If it feels it has been wrong it can be corrected. That is what we have requested the court with all politeness.”

Rohatgi also stated that no matter if you agree with the decision of the court or not it is ones duty to accept and respect the decisions made by the apex court, thought, there is always the provision of asking the SC to rethink over the previous judgment. “You can make a plea back to the court, you can ask for a reference to a larger bench, you can ask the legislative tool — the state assembly or parliament — to enact a law to remove the basis of the judgement. These are very recognised tools to tell a court that a mistake may have been made. As long as a judgement stands, you may criticise a judgement but you have no right to flout a judgement. That right is not available in the constitution. There is no question of flouting because if you start making flouting a norm then there will be anarchy.”

The previous orders passed was by a bench comprising two judges and as per the norm a three-judge bench has the authority to change or undo an order from a two-judge bench if it feels there is a need for revision. “I have told the court that the bigger order have been made by two-judge bench. Today there is a three-judge bench. And it is a norm and that a three-judge bench can revise or remove the order of a two-judge bench. And if there are a matter related to constitution – like the right of association or forming an association — go to a constitution bench. But for that there needs to be a debate. It has started today, the debate will go on.” Rohatgi added.