The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) over its opposition of the RM Lodha panel's 'one state-one vote' recommendation.
Hearing BCCI's affidavit on the implementation of the Lodha Committee's recommendations, the apex court on Tuesday slammed the cricket board over allocation of funds to state associations. The court said that funds have been distributed like a "mutually beneficial society" without any rationale.
"Impression one gets is that once BCCI gives money to state boards without any rationale, they in a way corrupt them," the SC observed during the hearing.
Questioning the BCCI's distribution policy, the SC observed that the board should have a distributive justice.
"BCCI must have distributive justice, why are eleven states penny less? Why should these states go begging?," it said.
The SC, in its observation, further stated: "Are the state allocations made after looking at people's face in the cricket board?"
The Supreme Court bench told BCCI lawyers: "Please don't say Lodha Committee recommendations cannot be implemented
The BCCI had submitted a detailed list of allocation of funds in the last five years to the Supreme Court, but allocation to eleven states was zero.
BCCI has already objected to several points made in the Lodha Panel report, pointing out the anomalies and difficulties encountered in the implementation of the committee's recommendations.
The Lodha committee was set up by the Supreme Court to clean up cricket administration in the country after a corruption and match-fixing scandal hit the Indian Premier League (IPL), leading to two-year suspensions of three-time champions Chennai Super Kings and inaugural edition winners Rajasthan Royals.
The three-member Lodha panel has put forward several recommendations to the Supreme Court which, if implemented, could have far reaching effects on cricket administration in India.
Among the recommendations are limitation of tenure for office-bearers of the BCCI and state associations, prescription to limit their age to 70 years, one state-one vote (set to directly affect the associations within the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat) and barring of ministers and government officials from becoming office-bearers.
 |
                                                                                           |
 |