Court dismisses PIL against BCCI

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) by Cricket Association of Bihar secretary Aditya Verma challenging the alleged conflict of interest in the administrative affairs of the BCCI.

Verma had objected to two main amendments to the BCCI rulebook. He had contended that an amendment to clause 6.2.4 of 'regulation for players, team officials, managers, umpires and administrators' was made in 2007 to enable N Srinivasan own an IPL franchise. According to the earlier clause, no administrator could have direct or indirect commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the BCCI. Sharad Pawar, who was the board president in 2007, ratified an amendment to IPL bylaws which made India Cements, a firm owned by Srinivasan, eligible for buying an IPL franchise. Srinivasan was the board treasurer at the time.

In his petition, Verma also objected to an amendment to the BCCI constitution in 2012 that allowed an eligible individual from any other zone to be nominated as the BCCI president. Following the amendment, an individual who is not from a specified zone can contest for the president's post with official support from two member organisations of that zone.

A division bench headed by Justice Anoop Mohota chose not to interfere in the BCCI's internal affairs since the court believed the board had followed their rulebook while amending the rules. The court refused to treat the petition as a PIL, since it was based on assumptions and presumptions, and dismissed it. The court then termed the petitioner as an outsider and said the allegations were not based on personal knowledge.