'BCCI constitution incapable of achieving transparency' - Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the BCCI's constitution was incapable of achieving the values of transparency, objectivity and accountability, and these could only be attained by changing it.
"The inherent constitution of the BCCI is such that it is highly incapable of achieving the values of transparency, objectivity and accountability [such] that without changing its structure it can't be done so," a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla said, while hearing a matter related to the implementation of reforms suggested by the three-member panel led by Justice RM Lodha.
The court's remarks were made after the views presented by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who was appointed amicus curiae to assist the court on how the recommendations of the Lodha committee, which favoured large-scale structural reforms to the BCCI, could be implemented.
Subramanium said that if the constitution of the BCCI does not allow the values to be achieved then it could be said to be illegal as the cricket board is discharging a public function.
"You discharge a public function but you want to enjoy private status," Subramanium said. "If you have a public persona then you have to shed the private persona. This cannot be done. It [the BCCI] selects the national team for the country, it cannot be a private society. It is a public entity."
Justifying the reforms suggested by the Lodha panel, Subramanium said the board would not have had the need for these recommendations if it had adhered to the constitutional values. Subramanium added that the BCCI is the beneficiary of the recommendations as implementing them will help ensure credibility of the institution.
"[The] Recommendations are in the right directions and the steps are in the right direction to ensure that constitutional values are adhered to ensure institutional integrity," he said
The court also asked Subramanium's views on the 'one state, one vote' recommendation that has drawn opposition from the BCCI's affiliated state associations. The court asked the amicus curiae what he made of the suggested reform that allows states which were earlier deprived of voting rights to exercise them, while removing the individual voting rights of members in states like Maharashtra and Gujarat, which have more than one association. Subramanium said the only ground which connected the two aspects was parity and every state should have been given an equal opportunity.
Subramanium also suggested that franchise members should be included in the IPL governing council to bring in more transparency. The bench then asked for the BCCI's response on legalising betting after Subramanium supported the recommendation.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal, who represented the BCCI, said a law has to be passed to legalise betting and such a measure was not feasible as every state has its own laws relating to betting and gambling.