MCA approves Lodha reforms, office holders eligible for two consecutive three-year terms
The board will call for a Special General Meeting (SGM), in which it'll adopt the reforms.
Published - Jan 17, 2018 12:55 am | Updated - Jan 19, 2018 3:15 pm
The Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) last year in December decided to adopt the Lodha committee reforms that were approved by the Supreme Court in July 2016. The SC had made it binding on the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and its members to adopt the Lodha committee proposals. Aimed at bringing greater transparency in cricket management, the committee had suggested radical changes in voting patterns, tenure and eligibility of the board members.
The constitution committee of the MCA, which met on Monday (January 15) has accepted the new draft constitution of the association, which incorporates the Lodha reforms, although after a significant modification. While the committee accepted the 70-year-age cap on administrators and the nine-year tenure clause, it has relaxed the cooling-off clause. It implies that those in office will be allowed two consecutive three-year terms instead of just one, as the Lodha reforms mandate.
The new draft is expected to be accepted by the MCA’s managing committee in its meeting on Tuesday. Following approval, the MCA will then circulate it to all the 330 members for their observation/feedback, and call for a Special General Meeting (SGM), in which it’ll adopt the reforms.
Former MCA president opens up about the developments
Speaking to TOI Former MCA president Ravi Savant and a key member of the constitution committee said, “If you know that you won’t be able to continue once your term is over, what incentive will you have to work? You will just want to enjoy the fringe benefits of the chair and not want to work. The modification was necessary because the roles of the BCCI and the state association are different.”
He added, “We’ve modified it (the clause allowing just one three-year term in the office). Whenever we realised that this point hasn’t reached in the SC. In fact, even the Committee of Administrators (CoA) has requested the apex court to amend this clause. The two bodies (BCCI and the state association) are totally different. They have different functions. So you can’t blindly adopt what’s been recommended for the BCCI.”