Supreme Court questions BCCI over funds allocation, political involvement

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 13) came down heavily on the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) over the issues of issues – fund allocation, excessive involvement of politicians in the functioning of the cricket bodies and the opposition to the 70-year age limit for board members.

“Whether a member has a vote in BCCI’s general body meeting should not be the guiding criterion for allocation of funds. Why should a vote decide the quantum of money to be given to a member, whether permanent or associate? Is it because BCCI has formed a mutual benefit society where members use their vote as veto for getting funds?” a bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice FMI Kalifulla asked.

The issue was raised after the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) made a plea that relegating it to associate member status, under Justice Lodha committee’s one state-one vote recommendation, would mean the annual funds it receives from the BCCI would nearly be halved.

The MCA had also taken objection to one of Lodha panel recommendations that said that ministers and government officials should be banned from becoming BCCI members. The Lodha committee queried that whether politicians had such a significant role to play in sporting activities in other countries.

The Supreme Court suggested that the cricket board should have a special advisory body comprising ministers and politicians but not include them among the office bearers managing the sport.

“It is a not a happy situation… where the system cannot work without political clout for carrying out a legitimate cricketing activity,” Justice Thakur said.

“Can we suggest an advisory board of politicians if you all are so keen to have their patronage?,” the bench asked.

“Please go outside Asia and tell us whether politicians and ministers have such a big role in the affairs of cricket bodies,” the bench said.

MCA also objected the Lodha committee recommendation that says 70 years should be the age limit for board members.

“Cricketers are not like lawyers or doctors to continue forever. Even if Gavaskar gets barred from becoming a BCCI member after turning 70, it will not debar him from contributing to the development of the sport,” the bench argued.

What are the roadblocks on their way to move IPL games out of Maharashtra? – Logistics and alternative venues solution becomes a new challenge for BCCI