The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 13) raised Question to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) over the issue regarding – fund allocation,excessive involvement of politicians in the functioning of the cricket bodies and the opposition to the 70-year age limit for board members.
According to BCCI’s practices,the permanent members from the board gain almost double the amount of funds when contrasted with the partner individuals.The Apex court descended intensely on this strategy, saying”Whether a member has a vote in BCCI’s general body meeting should not be the guiding criterion for allocation of funds. Why should a vote decide the quantum of money to be given to a member, whether permanent or associate? Is it because BCCI has formed a mutual benefit society where members use their vote as veto for getting funds?” a bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice FMI Kalifulla asked.
The issue was raised after the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) made a plea that relegating it to associate member status, under Justice Lodha committee’s one state-one vote recommendation, would mean the annual funds it receives from the BCCI would nearly be halved.
The MCA, headed by Sharad Pawar, favored the involvement of politicians in sporting bodies, saying their presence helped the associations get work done for big sporting events, which require security arrangements from police.
“It is a not a happy situation… where the system cannot work without political clout for carrying out a legitimate cricketing activity,” Justice Thakur said.
“Can we suggest an advisory board of politicians if you all are so keen to have their patronage?,” the bench asked.
“Please go outside Asia and tell us whether politicians and ministers have such a big role in the affairs of cricket bodies,” the bench said.
There has likewise been resistance from the MCA for the proposal that sets 70 years as far as possible for board Members. The MCA referred to the illustration of Sunil Gavaskar and said that such a suggestion would mean he won’t have the capacity to proceed as a BCCI part after three years.
“Cricketers are not like lawyers or doctors to continue forever. Even if Gavaskar gets barred from becoming a BCCI member after turning 70, it will not debar him from contributing to the development of the sport,” the bench argued.