BCCI Officials Risking Jail Terms?

The Lodha Committee seems in no mood to extend the deadlines set for the BCCI and its affiliated associations for a complete overhaul of their administrative structures and governance, and those who dare to defy the committee would be 'risking jail terms' for contempt of the Supreme Court.

Apart from that, sources aware of the mood of Lodha Committee also point out that the agenda the BCCI has circulated for its AGM has several items that are related to the 2016-17 cricket season and are seen as an act of defiance of the Lodha Committee’s timelines.

A source said that the BCCI would have to refrain from taking up those items, unless they effect the changes, else that would be construed as contempt of court under Article 129 of the Indian Constitution – thus risking jail terms -- as the three-member Lodha Committee was constituted by the Supreme Court.

The source said there is also the possibility of the associations that do not amend their constitutions by September 30 – and hold fresh elections by November 15 -- might be replaced by new bodies in those states.

Asked if there is any chance of an extension of the deadlines for the BCCI or its affiliates, a source aware of the developments, told Outlook: “No, absolutely not.”

According to the timelines released by the Lodha Committee, the BCCI should formally adopt a new Memorandum of Association (MoA) and Rules and Regulations by September 30; State/Member Associations should amend their Constitutions/MoA/Rules & Regulations/Bye-Laws by September 30; Electoral Officers for the BCCI and the States should be appointed by October 15; Elections for State Associations should take place by November 15; and BCCI Committees, IPL Governing Council and Appointment of the Management should be done by December 30.

It is gathered that the Lodha Committee has seen the agenda for the BCCI AGM, convened on September 21 in Mumbai, and is not happy with more than half of the listed items. The agenda has 13 items, and some of them deal with the 2016-17 season, in terms of administrative and policy decisions, which can't be taken up before complying with the timelines announced by the Lodha Committee.

The Lodha Committee has permitted the BCCI to only discuss the season gone by (like passing of the accounts and balance sheet), but no item dealing with the future can be taken up until administrative changes are effected both within the BCCI and its affiliates.

The source said that the Lodha Committee might warn the BCCI of discussing the contentious agenda points.

“It’s not only the No. 6 item on agenda (election of secretary), but seven or eight items that deal with the year 2016-17. They cannot do that,” he said. “About half of the BCCI AGM items will have to be postponed. The Lodha Committee might inform the BCCI that it should not take up those agenda items.”

There are precisely seven confrontational items on the agenda that could test the patience of the Lodha Committee/Supreme Court. They are: (1) Adoption of annual budget for 2016-17; (2) Appointment of auditors for 2016-17 and fixing their remuneration; (3) Election of BCCI secretary; (4) Election of Working Committee, Standing Committee, and Special Committees for 2016-17; (5) Matters concerning affiliation/promotion/disaffiliation/readmission of constituent units of BCCI, if any; (6) Appointment of Ombudsman, and (7) Appointment of BCCI representatives to the ICC and Asian Cricket Council etc.

“States (or whoever else) that do not comply with Lodha Committee timelines risk criminal contempt of Supreme Court,” said the source close to the committee. “It’s civil contempt of court where there is pure disobedience of an order by someone. Criminal contempt comes into play when steps are taken to ensure that due administration of justice is interfered with. For example, once the Lodha Committee sent a missive to a state association and if someone within that state association gives instructions to others not to follow them becomes criminal contempt.”

Then, speaking specifically about consequences of disobedience, he said: “It would be accurate to say that whoever disobeys risks jail terms from the court, when it is contempt of the Supreme Court under Article 129 of the constitution.”

Article 129 says: “The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself) it has very wide powers.”

Citing Shahra India chief Subrata Roy’s example, the source said he was sent to jail in March 2014 for disobedience of the Supreme Court’s orders, and has since been languishing there.

“He is still figuring out what it [contempt of court] means. He is gone to jail not because of not paying dues [to the investors]; he has gone in because of contempt of court. He gave an undertaking to the court and couldn’t comply with it,” said the source.

“So, despite the law of contempt of court generally providing for a two-year sentence, the Supreme Court’s powers under the constitution are much wider than even that. That’s why Subrata Roy has been inside the jail for more than two years. He can go in [possibly] for two-and-a-half years; these people [cricket administrators] who are interfering with the court’s orders can go in for at least two-three days. Whether they want to risk that is a question that they will have to answer.”

Since the Lodha Committee doesn’t look like giving an extension to its timelines, state associations that don’t change their constitution by September 30 run the risk of vanishing from the surface completely, said the source.

“If the general body of a state association opposes [the changes], then that body wouldn’t be the association for that state as far as the BCCI is concerned, and some other (read ‘new’) association would be recognised,” he said, perhaps giving a peep into the thinking of the Lodha Committee.

To clarify the point, when asked specifically if new associations could actually come up in states if the existing ones don’t amend their rules, the source said: “Yes, of course, it could come up. And once it happens [in one state] rest assured that everybody will make a beeline for that (to be part of new associations in states).”

To further buttress his point, he pointed out that most of the state associations don’t own the stadiums. “They are owned by their respective governments and are given on long lease. There are very few exceptions,” he said.

While delivering the judgement on July 18, the Supreme Court had given up to six months’ time to the BCCI and its affiliates to comply with its order. It also gave power and freedom to the Lodha Committee to ensure implementation of the order, and if need be, revert to it for assistance.

The issue of reforms with the BCCI/affiliates is traced to the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal and the Board’s attempt to have an in-house probe panel for investigation. The unrecognised Cricket Association of Bihar secretary Aditya Verma challenged the BCCI probe panel in the Bombay High Court, which scrapped the committee.

The BCCI then moved the Supreme Court against that order and that move, as history would record it, led to a prolonged court battle – and thus was born the issue of reforms in the 87-year-old Board.