The Lodha Panel Reforms

[cnerd123]

Surprised we don't have a thread on this yet.

I know next to nothing about these reforms, except that they seem to be instigating a few problems in Indian Cricket atm.

As of July 18, the BCCI were given 6 months to implement the reforms, to be overseen by RM Lodha, the former chief justice of India and the guy who these Reforms were named after.

The full details of the reforms can be found here: https://lodhacommittee.wordpress.com/

The Cricinfo Summary of the highlights of these Reforms are as follows:

Highlights of the court order

Recommendations that were accepted

♢ Each state will have only one vote at BCCI elections

♢ Ministers and civil servants cannot hold BCCI offices

♢ BCCI and state office bearers must not be over 70 years old

♢ No person can hold office at the BCCI and state association simultaneously

♢ No person can hold more than three, three-year terms as a BCCI official, and no official can serve consecutive terms

Recommendations that weren't imposed

♢ Bringing the BCCI under the Right to Information Act

♢ Legalising betting in India

♢ Limiting TV advertisements during the broadcast of matches

♢ Making the BCCI fund the proposed players' association

The catalyst for this reforms was, surprise surprise, the IPL. Back in January of 2015, the Supreme Court assembled a panel to decide upon the punishment to be handed RR and CSK owners Raj Kundra and Gurunath Meiyappan for betting during the 2013 IPL.

This committee seems to have continued their investigation into the BCCI and it's practices, and after releasing their mandate on Meiyappan and Kundra in July 2015, put forward a report on Cricket Reforms to the Supreme Court on 4th Jan 2016.
They were in two volumes and can be downloaded in .docx format from the link above. They are close to 300 pages between them, and I have yet to read it, but the Supreme Court did read it and decided to force the BCCI to implement these reforms.

The BCCI clearly didn't want to. Sharda Ugra wrote a nice article about this on Cricino. These paragraphs sum it up well:

The BCCI's response in this affair from the outset - despite the presence of many weighty shining legal lights on its roster and on its side - was heavy-handed. Both in court and in the public. The board's first response was to let out a few high-volume sound bites: that the recommendations were not binding, that the BCCI was a private body and so it could not be approached as if it were a public enterprise. It was this line of argument that occupied far too much of the court's time, and must have set the judges' teeth on edge.

One of the more revealing parts of the order says: "Neither BCCI nor anyone else has assailed the findings recorded by the Committee insofar as the deep rooted malaise that pervades in the working of the BCCI is concerned… either in the affidavits filed or in the course of arguments at the bar." Which in layman's language means that neither the BCCI nor anyone else has strongly criticised the Lodha committee's findings with reference to the flaws in the BCCI's functioning, neither in written affadavits filed or verbal arguments made before the bench. The BCCI was not righteously claiming to having been unfairly criticised with reference to its functioning. What it was saying to the highest court of the country - and the highest judge in that court - was that you do not have the right to tick us off.

From what I gather so far is that the BCCI do not feel that the Supreme Court of India have the right to tell them how to operate. They feel that is beyond their jurisdiction. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Well, I haven't actually read the Lodha Reforms yet, and I have no idea if, legally speaking, the Supreme Court actually has any authority over the BCCI's operations. Sharda Ugra seems to suggest that the BCCI could argue against these reforms, but recent events show that while the Supreme Court may not have any direct control over the BCCI, they do have control over the banks, and the BCCI are nothing without their $$$.

Should be an exciting few weeks ahead.

 

[Daemon]

Was just looking at their annual report, and in 2014/15 Gavaskar was paid 3.49 Crores for compensation as Interim IPL President.

**** me, that's a bit more than half a million USD. Insane numbers for someone who didn't look like he had to do much, and had no relevant experience.

 

[Daemon]

Shastri was paid 5.82 Crores for being Team Director, fuark.

 

[indiaholic]

Hahah no wonder he was so pissed off when Kumble was selected.

 

[hendrix]

I'm not a lawyer but these are my thoughts:

Right to information acts around the world - insofar as I understand them - usually apply primarily to public companies; which makes sense because the taxpayer (everyone) is funding them so everyone should have access to that information. So I can see how the BCCI could quite rightly argue against it.

But am I right in saying that the BCCI is classed as a charitable company? Because that may mean certain other laws should apply too.

Saying that BCCI and state office bearers must not be older than 70 years is straight up ageism and is an illegal order, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[hendrix]

I really feel that the Supreme Court cannot and probably should not make these recommendations.

Instead, what they should be doing and what they are legally entitled to do:
- Investigate corruption and prosecute
- Investigate fraud and prosecute
- Investigate anti-competitive behaviour
- Investigate tax evasion
- Make a ruling on to what degree the BCCI is really a "charitable" organisation
- Impose the right to unionise so that the players can properly form union/s
- etc etc.

 

[Daemon]

Saying that BCCI and state office bearers must not be older than 70 years is straight up ageism and is an illegal order, as far as I'm concerned.

Plenty of Corporate Governance codes around the world have age limits for directorships iirc. Even if they don't many companies choose to implement them in their own codes as well.

 

[hendrix]

It's an immoral code.

 

[hendrix]

Make them pass a physical or whatever, that's fine. But otherwise it's discrimination.

 

[indiaholic]

I'm not a lawyer but these are my thoughts:

Right to information acts around the world - insofar as I understand them - usually apply primarily to public companies; which makes sense because the taxpayer (everyone) is funding them so everyone should have access to that information. So I can see how the BCCI could quite rightly argue against it.

But am I right in saying that the BCCI is classed as a charitable company? Because that may mean certain other laws should apply too.

Saying that BCCI and state office bearers must not be older than 70 years is straight up ageism and is an illegal order, as far as I'm concerned.

The Act they are registered under allows them to spend their revenues to promote the sport in any way they want and I don't think there is a prohibition on paying salaries to the committee members in the BCCI. They are not allowed to issue dividends or bonuses on profits to anybody. That effectively makes it a non profit, no?

 

[Burgey]

Sounds like a Lodha crap afaic.

 

[Jono]

good from you

 

[Athlai]

Was hoping for a slightly more... substantial post from Burgey on the subject.

 

[cnerd123]

Ive actually spoken to a friend who is studying Law in India and based on what she was able to dig up, the Supreme Court do have jurisdiction over the BCCI and have far-reaching powersnin India.

Everybody is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under*article 226.However, Courts have exercised restraint and they exercise these powers only in cases which involve public law. Therefore, the ''litmus'' test for invoking the writ jurisdiction is whether the act complained of is in the discharge of a public duty or a public function. It matters little as to who discharges the public duty or performs the public function. And so too, the source of the power to discharge or perform such duty or function. Whether the person is empowered by statute or some governmental order or whether such person arrogates to himself the power to perform a public function or discharge a public duty, is of no consequence. What is to be seen is whether there is an infraction in the discharge of such duty or function.*

You could argue that the BCCI, by controlling and regulating all Cricket in India, are thus providing a public service, and thus fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. And under Article 142, they can basically do anything they want 'in the interests of justice'

 

[Daemon]

Selectors should be fired and replaced by RANDI

 

[indiaholic]

Ive actually spoken to a friend who is studying Law in India and based on what she was able to dig up, the Supreme Court do have jurisdiction over the BCCI and have far-reaching powersnin India.



You could argue that the BCCI, by controlling and regulating all Cricket in India, are thus providing a public service, and thus fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. And under Article 142, they can basically do anything they want 'in the interests of justice'

Agree with all of this. The state and judiciary do have far reaching powers. Didnt they basically force private channels to share their feed with Doordarshan so that people without cable connections can still watch games? I mean a court which ruled during the emergency that the right to life is not sacrosanct, having the power to micro manage the BCCI does not surprise me.. I just feel it is wrong.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Thought this thread was going to be about *****'s new 80's influenced garage-rock band.

 

[cnerd123]

https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/103548/endgame-at-last-or-is-there-more-wiggle-room-for-bcci

Seems like a win for the BCCI in their battle against professionalization. They've managed to outlast the Chief Justice who was pushing through these reforms, and his successor has now offered a more diluted set of recommendations.

 

[Daemon]

lauda panel