Filing a curative petition is the last resort for the board, but insider in Lodha Panel says there's no scope of roll back when it comes to adhering to reforms
Justice RMâu00c2u0080u00c2u0088Lodha has the last laugh as Supreme Court calls the shots
The Supreme Court yesterday ordered the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke to vacate office immediately, but if sources inside the cricket board are to be believed, all is not lost yet.
ADVERTISEMENT
"BCCI still has the option of filing a curative petition before January 18. It is a 50-50 situation because the curative application may be accepted or dismissed. But there isn't complete clarity in the SC verdict as it stands at the moment," said a senior member of the cricket board.
Sources in the Panel however dismissed any scope of a roll back or a change of mind for any relief to the BCCI and its affiliated units. Then what gives BCCI that glimmer of hope to which they are trying to cling to?
Contradictory verdict?
"There is a lot of contradiction to what the Supreme Court said in their July 18 verdict, after Justice RM Lodha submitted their report to the two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla, and what the apex court have said now," said a BCCI insider.
"The major contradiction is that in the July 18 verdict, the SC said that it is not seeking amendment of the constitution of the BCCI. If it is not seeking an amendment of the constitution then the other points which the SC has asked the BCCI and its affiliated units to honour, like one-state-one-vote, the age factor and term in office, cooling off period etc, stands contradicted."
Pointing to the contradiction, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented BCCI during a hearing of a petition filed by the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA), which was against the one-state-one-vote policy, said, by that recommendation, the entire structure and function of the BCCI and other state cricket associations have to be changed, and that is against the essence of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.
Against Article 19(1)(c)
Sibal then said that if the rights under Article 19(1)(c) — the right to form an association, the right to autonomy and the right to remove membership etc — are protected and not interfered with, then there is no problem.
However, in May last year, the Supreme Court said that the BCCI constitution in its current form is not capable of "achieving the values of transparency, objectivity and accountability".
In reply to BCCI's objection on implementing some of the recommendations made by the panel citing 'constitutional obligations' the SC said: "The inherent constitution of the BCCI is such that it is highly incapable of achieving the values of transparency, objectivity and accountability (such) that without changing its structure it can't be done."
Another senior member of the cricket board said, "Finally, sanctity of law has been upheld." So much for the so called unity within the Indian cricket board!
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
