BCCI hearing put off until October 17

The Supreme Court has put off passing a final order concerning the BCCI's implementation of the Lodha Committee recommendations until its next working day, which is October 17 because the court breaks for Dussehra holidays for a week.

The court had initially given the board one day to provide an undertaking that it would accept the recommendations "unconditionally" by October 7, but the delay was because the entire three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices AM Khanvilkar and DY Chandrachud, which had heard the matter on Thursday, was not available after lunch on Friday.

The matter had been listed for the "end of board," which meant the order would be announced after all other cases for the day were heard, but Justice Chandrachud, who was presiding on a different bench on Friday, had left for the day before the other matters in the Chief Justice's courtroom were concluded.

As a result, the court passed an interim order in which it noted that the BCCI had been "non-cooperative in its attitude" based on the status report submitted by the Lodha Committee and also the arguments raised by amicus curiae Gopal Subramanium on Thursday.

"The sequence of events that have taken place since 18th July, 2016 and referred to in the status report prima facie give an impression that BCCI has far from lending its fullest cooperation to the Committee adopted an obstructionist and at times a defiant attitude which the Committee has taken note of and described as an impediment undermining not only the Committee but even the dignity of this Court with several statements and actions which according to the Committee are grossly out of order and may even constitute contempt," the order stated.

The court said it would leave a final decision for a future date, but reminded the BCCI about its attitude. "All that we need mention is that in the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee, the BCCI appears to be non-cooperative in its attitude."

Chief Justice Thakur also said in court that BCCI president Anurag Thakur must file a personal affidavit to respond to whether he had approached the ICC asking for a letter that may have aided the board in not implementing the Lodha Committee's recommendations.

The Chief Justice was referencing a story in India Today on September 12 that quoted ICC chief executive David Richardson as saying that Anurag Thakur had asked the ICC to address a letter to the BCCI, asking it to clarify whether the recommendations of the Lodha Committee did not amount to government interference in the board. As per ICC regulations, member boards cannot have government interference in their functioning. ICC chairman Shashank Manohar, Richardson said, had been reluctant to get involved in the matter unless "formally" requested to.

"Mr. Anurag Thakur, President of the BCCI shall file a personal affidavit whether he had asked the CEO of the ICC to state that the appointment of Justice Lodha Committee was tantamount to Government interference in the working of the BCCI," the court said in the order.

A BCCI official ESPNcricinfo spoke to, however, said the board would continue to stick to its stance that it will not give the undertaking asked by the court to "unconditionally" implement the recommendations of the Lodha Committee. When asked whether the postponement of the hearing to October 17 would give the BCCI time to reach out to the state associations and form a response, the official said the absence of the top brass of the board would be a hurdle.

The official said both BCCI president Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke would be in Cape Town to attend ICC board meetings between October 10 and 14. They would return by October 16.

On Thursday, the court had given the BCCI one day to return with such an undertaking, but a board official had indicated later that evening that it was not in a position to do so in such a short time frame. The court had set the deadline while hearing the BCCI's response to the Lodha Committee's status report, which had been filed in the Supreme Court on September 28 and recommended that the court "supersede" the board's office bearers with "immediate effect" because they were hindering the implementation of the recommendations.