The top court made the remarks during the hearing of the board’s plea seeking amendments to its constitution with regard to the tenure of its office bearers, including its president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah. State Cricket Associations and BCCI.
The top court, which said that the cooling-off period between the term of office bearers will not be waived as “the purpose of the cooling-off period is that there should be no vested interest,” it will continue and pass with the hearing on Wednesday.
As per the constitution adopted by the BCCI, an office-bearer has to undergo a cooling-off period of three years between two consecutive terms in the state association or BCCI or both jointly.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BCCI, initially told a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli that the game of cricket in the country is very well organized.
He said that the BCCI is an autonomous body and all the changes have been considered by the cricket body’s AGM.
When the submission was being made, the bench said, “BCCI is an autonomous body. We cannot micro-manage its functioning.”
“As the constitution exists today, there is a cooling-off period. If I am an office-bearer of the state cricket association for one term and BCCI for the second consecutive term, I will have to go for the cooling-off period,” Mehta said.
He said that both the bodies are different and their rules are also different and two consecutive terms of office bearer are too short to develop leadership at the grassroots level.
The Solicitor General said, “Leadership develops at the grassroots level and it stays in the state association. By the time it comes time for him to be promoted to BCCI, he has to go through a mandatory three-year cooling-off period. One, if he is not an active member of the state association, he cannot become a member of the BCCI.”
He said that the BCCI office-bearer should not be considered for holding office in the state association for the cooling-off period.
While making the submissions, Justice Chandrachud cautioned, “We are engaging in discussion and not passing any judgment. Social media thinks that whatever we say in court is judgment but it is just a dialogue to get feedback and better understanding of facts.
Therefore, an office-bearer of the state association cannot hold any post in the BCCI without undergoing a cooling-off period of three years as per the existing constitution, the bench said.
Mehta said the Court’s concern is that no one should be in charge of the cricket body forever and this concern has been taken care of by suggesting a cooling-off period after two consecutive terms in the BCCI, so that “qualified administrators”. have experience. “Doesn’t go to waste.
He said the second amendment pertains to the age restriction of 70 years on the governing council for representation in the International Cricket Council, which the BCCI wants to remove.
The bench said, “Why should we have people above 70 years, let young people represent the country in ICC? We are not saying that people above 70 years of age have not done exemplary work, but this It’s a game. We have our lawyers. Generals, who are above 70, there are some doctors above 70 who are doing exemplary work in their field.”
Mehta said, “The ICC is a council where it is decided that which country gets how much fund. There is a huge conversation between the legends of cricket bodies around the world. My jawan has to deal with these legends, who have 30- 40 years of experience dealing with cricket”.
He said that there is no age restriction for ICC representation in any part of the world.
The bench said, “Do you mean to say that there is no age restriction for ICC representation in Cricket Australian Board or England and Wales Cricket Board? Show us the material on record. We do not have any material in respect of that. You place it”.
The bench said it would continue its hearing on Wednesday and asked amicus curiae senior advocate Maninder Singh to collate all the details.
(with PTI inputs)
No comments:
Post a Comment