BCCI A 'Mutually Beneficial Society', Says SC

Calling the BCCI a "mutually beneficial society", the Supreme Court on Tuesday once again came down heavily on the world's richest cricket body and particularly questioned the uneven pattern of distribution of money amongst its affiliated associations. At one stage, the Chief Justice of India said that "you are practically corrupting" the associations for votes through the present pattern of fund distribution.

A bench comprising CJI T.S. Thakur and Justice FMI Kalifulla also took the BCCI to task for "doing nothing" to promote cricket and build infrastructure in the smaller states, especially in north-east, that are not its full members.

"If out of 29 states, 11 states are begging for money [from the BCCI] that's not good. And you have given Rs 60 crore to Gujarat [Cricket Association over a few years]. You are practically corrupting that person [the association] for votes," Thakur said to BCCI counsel KK Venugopal.

Gujarat Cricket Association (GCA) president is BJP president Amit Shah, and his son Jay is a joint secretary. Amit Shah replaced Narendra Modi as president when the latter assumed charge as prime minister in May 2014.

Other than the lopsided distribution of funds, Justice Thakur asked several other pointed questions to the BCCI counsel, who at times didn't have the answers ready. At one point during the one-and-a-half-hour hearing, when the bench sought to know the complex distribution of funds, BCCI General Manager (Administration) Ratnakar Shetty, who was sitting in the visitors' gallery, had to be called in and explain the way the funds are distributed and other issues.

In the previous hearing, too, on March 3, Shetty was consulted when the BCCI counsel sought answers to some specific questions asked by Justice Thakur.

However, in the face of a barrage of questions on why associations like Bihar, the third most populous state of the country, and Arunachal were not given money, even Shetty buckled. Justice Thakur wondered how those states could develop infrastructure unless the BCCI gave funds.

"How do you expect neglected states to develop if you don't give them money. For six years, not a penny has been given to Bihar. You have done nothing to promote the game," Thakur said politely but firmly.

Like in the previous hearing, Thakur on Tuesday again emphasised that the Lodha Committee was not a small government committee whose recommendations could be ignored, indicating that if some recommendations would be diluted at all they would be negligible.

"We are not likely to interfere [in the Lodha report recommendations]. You cannot say the committee's findings are perverse," observed Thakur. "This is not an ordinary government committee of some government officials."

After patiently hearing the BCCI counsel for over an hour, Justice Thakur told him that the applicants (the state associations) that have filed application for intervention had to be heard too.

Justice Thakur asked Venugopal how more much he would take, to which the counsel said one more hour. The next hearing was fixed for Friday.

The main objections of the BCCI on the Lodha Committee Report are about recommendation that one state should only one member and one vote; ministers and government servants should not be allowed to hold any post in the BCCI; commercial time during live telecast of international matches; formation of an apex committee; and a national players' association.

In the previous hearing, Justice Thakur had asked the BCCI counsel to furnish the funds distributed to all the associations in the last five years (from 2010-11 to 2014-15). On Tuesday, Justice Thakur asked many tough questions based on the uneven numbers given in the detailed chart that the BCCI had provided.

"You have given nothing to Bihar and given another state Rs 66 crores,”" he asked, looking into the chart. In reply, the BCCI said that the associate member had not filed audited accounts and also pointed out that there were more than one associations fighting for control in Bihar.

At this juncture, senior lawyer Nalini Chidambaram, who is representing Cricket Association of Bihar and Pondicherry, intervened and said that the BCCI had "arbitrarily given" membership to one of the fighting associations.

When Justice Thakur asked the BCCI counsel as to why the north-eastern states were being neglected, Shetty pointed out that the BCCI has a New Areas Development Committee in place and that looks after smaller associations and the Board like provides cricket gear and equipment etc. to them.

Thakur also asked as to how many states cases of misappropriation of funds. "You distributed Rs 572 crores in a year and there is no transparency, nothing…" he observed.