Supreme Court to hear BCCI's views on Lodha recommendations

The Supreme Court had on February 4 asked the BCCI to let it know by March 3 if it would accept the recommendations made by the Lodha committee in January. The committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in January 2015, made several sweeping recommendations that aim to overhaul Indian cricket, with special focus on the BCCI's administrative and governance structures. The court had said it would have the committee implement the recommendations if the BCCI found it difficult to do so.

What is due to happen on Thursday?

The two-member bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah will hear the BCCI's affidavit.

What is the BCCI's affidavit likely to say?

It is understood that the BCCI's affidavit is "fairly elaborate" in nature, as it seeks to impress upon the Supreme Court the "anomalies" in the Lodha committee's recommendations and the problems in implementing them. Although the BCCI has said it has partially accepted the recommendations and put in place mechanisms to address conflict of interest by appointing an Ombudsman, it is learnt that the board is opposed to most of the recommendations.

Some of the recommendations the BCCI is opposed to include doing away with ad breaks between overs in Tests and ODIs, limiting the tenure of office bearers to 70 years, barring politicians and bureaucrats to be part of the BCCI in state associations, and a tenure of a maximum of three terms of nine years each across positions.

Who are the other parties that have filed objections?

Many state associations - including the Mumbai Cricket Association, the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, the Karnataka State Cricket Association and Punjab Cricket Association - have filed detailed objections to several recommendations. According to reports, former India allrounder Chandu Borde has also recorded his objections, especially against the one-state-one-vote recommendation and the age-cap on office bearers.

What is the court likely to do in response?

A BCCI source said it was hard to second guess what the Supreme Court was thinking, but said there were quite a few likely outcomes. "Any number of things can happen. One, they can simply pass an order asking us to implement the recommendations in toto," the source said. "Two, they [the Supreme Court bench] might take stock of the fact that many state associations have raised objections and agree to look into them in greater detail and defer the hearing for later. Three, they can ask us to go back to Lodha and run the objections by them, and adjourn the matter by a few months."

How much closer does this take us to closure?

The time-frame will depend on a few factors; should the Supreme Court make it binding upon the BCCI to implement all the recommendations, the board might have only limited time and practically no elbow room in effecting the revamp. If the judges decide to defer the hearing the, wait could be longer.