TV advertisement relief for BCCI

Lodha Committee recommendation: That all existing television and broadcasting contracts for Test and one-day internationals be reworked with new terms that allow for ad breaks only during drinks, lunch and tea intervals. The recommendations also stated that a large portion of the TV screen display the game and only a small portion display sponsors logos or other advertisements.

The BCCI's objection: The board argued that reworking or modifying existing broadcasting contracts would result in "serious financial difficulties" and "heavy financial loss" for the BCCI. It also stated the game's telecast was not hampered by commercial exploitation of the event.   Court's response: The Supreme Court left it to the BCCI to examine the matter of the quality of broadcast keeping in mind the committee's reservations about television coverage and the omnipresence of commercial advertising. The BCCI was asked to take a "considered decision" with regard to the Committee's recommendations and study the possibility of modification in existing contracts.

Lodha Committee recommendation: The committee recommended that because the Supreme Court had stated that the BCCI discharged public functions, it needed to be brought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, thus giving the general public the right to ask for information about the board's functioning and activities.

Court's response: The Supreme Court said while that the public did have a right to know details about the BCCI's functioning, it was for the law commission to examine the issue of including the BCCI under the Right to Information Act and pass on its recommendation to the government; only then could the the government move to legislate and bring the board under the RTI Act. Similarly, the court said the recommendation to legalising betting could only be implemented by an enactment of a law, which comes under the purview of first the law commission and then the government.

Lodha Committee recommendation: That an independent players' association be established to give players a "voice to raise their concerns and have them discussed with the BCCI". The committee recommended that the BCCI handle the expenses involved in the creation and functioning of the association. It also stated that two representatives of the association, one male and one female, be nominated to the Apex Council - the proposed body that would replace the Working Committee, the BCCI's highest decision-making body.

The BCCI's objection: While the BCCI didn't challenge the formation of a players' association, it asked why the board should extend financial support to it. The BCCI also opposed the recommendation to provide representation to players' association members in the Apex Council, contending that some of the cricketers had in the past "held offices in state associations and in the BCCI by recourse to the democratic process".

Court's response: The Supreme Court held that it wasn't an "unacceptable idea" for the BCCI to financially assist the players' association, but the extent of support was left to the board's discretion. However, the court said it did not see why the players' representatives should not be on the Apex Council, given the players' association "would represent a very significant and important segment of the stakeholders in the game".