BCCI Circulates Lawyer's Opinion To Give A Twist To Tale

Some of the BCCI’s affiliated state associations could on Saturday oppose the Lodha panel recommendation that instructs them to change their constitutions after the BCCI on Friday quietly circulated a written opinion from one of its senior advocates which says the recent Supreme Court “judgement does not give any specific direction to the state associations and there is also no direction against them to amend their bye-laws”.

Senior advocate Arvind P. Datar, whom the BCCI has been consulting for a long time, also said that the “state associations can continue with their existing position”.

This opinion could hold the key to how the BCCI general body votes at the special meeting convened in Mumbai on Saturday, October 1.

“…there is no specific power given to the Lodha Committee to implement directions against state associations,” writes Arvind P. Datar, whom the BCCI has been consulting for a while, in a five-page written letter dated August 12, 2016, and accessed by Outlook.  

“The net result is that the state associations can continue with the present method of functioning and need not alter the bye-laws. The only possible adverse consequence is the loss of grant from the BCCI,” says Datar, an expert in taxation and one of the finest lawyers in south India.

But, he feels, the associations can still receive grants. “In my view, para 62 of the judgement will override the directions of the Lodha Committee to discontinue grant if the composition of the state associations is not changed. The contents of para 62, when read with para 92, indicate that the recommendations of the Lodha Committee to that extent will not prevail,” he says.  

Experts wonder if this was indeed the secret ‘plan’ that some BCCI office-bearers had been talking about with its affiliates who were “in the dark” about the steps the Board was going to take vis-à-vis implementation of the Lodha Committee recommendations.

“This is their ‘plan’. You will probably see on Saturday the state associations opposing the Lodha Committee recommendations,” felt one of them.

Sources say Datar’s opinion was quietly distributed to the representatives of the state associations in Mumbai on Friday, when a special general body meeting, convened to discuss the Lodha Committee recommendations, was very dramatically adjourned till October 1.

The BCCI said that the meeting was adjourned because some of the members did not carry proper authorisation letter – an explanation that falls flat in an age of lightening-speed communication technologies.

Datar, in his opinion, has relied heavily on paragraph No. 62 (actually the paragraph he has quoted in his latter is No.61 of the 143-page Supreme Court judgment of July 18, 2016) and paragraph 92 of the judgment in the ‘BCCI vs Cricket Association of Bihar’ case.

Sources say one reason of adjourning the SGM on Friday could be that not all members of the general body were convinced and were probably not ready to adhere to the ‘plan’ that the BCCI has apparently formulated to tackle the recommendations. By adjourning the meeting, the BCCI technically entered the ‘contempt of court’ zone.

Operative part of senior advocate Arvind P. Datar’s five-page ‘opinion’

Further to the judgement of the Supreme Court, the BCCI has received queries from its members like Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Cricket Association of Bengal etc. on the applicability of the Lodha Committee report to themselves.

Based on the Lodha Committee report and the decision of the Supreme Court dated 18-07-2016, the querist [BCCI] seeks my opinion on the questions set out below, which are answered in seriatim.

Q 1. Whether the judgement of the Supreme Court of India dated 18-7-2016 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 – BCCI vs Cricket Association of Bihar & Others makes it mandatory for the state associations to follow the directives of the Lodha Committee?

Ans: Para 62 of the judgement of the Supreme Court (as reported in SCC online) in BCCI vs Cricket Association of Bihar reads as follows: “Seen in the backdrop of the above, the recommendations made by the Committee in the instant do not interfere with or alter the composition of the State Associations.

Individual citizens who came together to form the State Associations have not been asked to discontinue their association nor do the recommendations impose upon their members an obligation to associate with others with whom they do not wish to associate.

Composition of the State Cricket Associations remain unaffected, and so does the right of those forming such Associations under Article 19(1)(c).

That being so, the grievance sought to be made on behalf of citizens who have formed the State Associations does not stand scrutiny no matter none of those on whose behalf the argument is advanced is before this Court to make any such grievance. We have, in the light of the above, no difficulty in rejecting the first limb of the submissions made by learned counsel opposing the recommendation of the committee that BCCI shall have the Cricket Association from each State as a full member.”

A plain reading of the decision makes it clear that the recommendations made by the Lodha Committee do not interfere or alter the composition of the state associations. The Supreme Court goes on to add that “the composition of state cricket associations remains unaffected and so does the right of those forming such Associations under Article 19(1)(c).”

Thus, the judgement does not give any specific direction to the state associations and there is also no direction against them to amend their bye-laws or have a particular composition of members.

In para 92 of the decision, the Supreme Court has accepted the report of the Lodha Committee and its recommendations with the modifications and clarifications made in the judgement of the court. The Lodha Committee has recommended uniformity in structure and required the state associations to comply with certain restrictions like limit of 9 years, inclusion of nominee members, no proxy voting etc. These are to be included in the relevant rules/bye-laws of the state associations and if this is not done, the concerned state association(s) will not be entitled to any grant from the BCCI.

The net result is that the state associations can continue with the present method of functioning and need not alter the bye-laws. The only possible adverse consequence is the loss of grant from the BCCI.

However, as pointed out in my answer to Q3, in view of the para 62 of the decision of the Supreme Court, the state associations are not required to change their composition and the grant cannot be discontinued. Hence, this direction of the Lodha Committee report of withholding grants would therefore stand modified by the Supreme Court judgment.

Q2: Whether the said judgment empowers the Lodha Committee to implement the judgment as far as the state associations are concerned?

Ans: Para 92 of the decision (as per SSC online) empowers the Lodha Committee to draw appropriate timelines for implementation of their recommendations and supervise the implementation thereof. However, in para 62, as extracted above, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the composition of the state associations remains unaffected. Thus, there is no specific power given to the Lodha Committee to implement directions against state associations.

Q3: Further, are the state associations well within their rights to avoid following the directives of the Lodha Committee?

Ans: The state associations can continue with their existing position. In my view, para 62 of the judgement will override the directions of the Lodha Committee to discontinue grant if the composition of the state associations is not changed. The contents of para 62, when read with para 92, indicates that the recommendations of the Lodha Committee to that extent will not prevail. Once the Supreme Court has held that the composition of the state associations is to remain unaffected, the directions of the Lodha Committee to make changes to the composition of the state associations will not be applicable. Consequently, the state associations can also call upon BCCI not to cut their grant in the terms of the Lodha Committee.