Lodha vs BCCI: Adamant on age cap of 70 years, Supreme Court allows Indian board to propose three names

In an interesting move, the Indian board has now told the apex court that it wants to suggest new names to run its administration.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected all names suggested by two-member panel for the functioning of Board of Cricket for Control in India (BCCI).

The apex court had asked advocate Anil B. Divan and Gopal Subramaniam to assist in nominating persons of impeccable integrity as members of committee of administrators. But the court rejected all those names as the proposed candidates were all over 70 years of age.

While the two-member panel submitted nine names to the apex court in a sealed envelope, SC didn't agree with any of those names.

Meanwhile, in an interesting move, the Indian board requested the apex court to suggest some names to run its administration. SC allowed BCCI and Centre to suggest names for appointmentin the committee of administrators in the cricket board. The names have to be given in sealed covers by BCCI and Centre to the court by January 27.

During the January 20 hearing, attorney general Mukul Rohatgi put across the issues in front of Supreme Court on behalf of Railways, armed forces and university associations – urging the apex court to withdraw their July 18 verdict on the cricketing body.

He reportedly said that the right of the state associations has been wrongly infringed under Article 19 (1) (c)- freedom to form associations. Although BCCI is a private body, but it partially affects Governments work too.

Rohatgi further said that that questions can be raised on the SC's judgement of 2016 which directed the implementation of Lodha reforms.

On January 2, the Supreme Court had removed BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke from their respective posts for their failure to bring transparency and accountability to the Indian cricket board and their non-compliance of the court`s July 18, 2016 order.

The apex court has also sought a reply from Thakur regarding perjury charges levelled against him by Subramaniam. On December 15, the top court had observed that Thakur prima facie appears to have committed matter of perjury in relation to demanding an intervention via a letter from the International Cricket Council (ICC) in order to sidestep the implementation of the Lodha Committee recommendations.

Earlier, in a landmark judgment on July 18, the apex court accepted major recommendations of Justice Lodha-led panel on structural reforms in the BCCI and had given six months deadline to the board to implement the recommendations.

On October 1, the board had accepted many of the "significant recommendations" of the Lodha Committee, but excluded the important ones which have been a bone of contention between the cricket body and the Lodha Panel.

The recommendations, which have still not been accepted by the 30-member committee, include one-state one-vote, age limit of 70 years, cooling-off period of three years which included the tenure of the administrators, continue with the five-selectors and retaining the powers of the president and secretary as per the earlier constitution of the board.

(With Agency inputs)