New Delhi: The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud have set July 5 as the next hearing date in the BCCI matter after Amicus Curiae Gopal Subramanium has shared the suggestions for the new board constitution with all the state associations and office bearers. But in a surprise move, the SC-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) has now sent in a mail to create strife within the state bodies.
The CoA is anticipating a direction by the Supreme Court bench that the affairs of each of the state associations be administered by an administrator to be appointed by the High Court till the time fresh, free, fair and untainted elections are conducted. They have accordingly taken the liberty to send a mail — in possession of CricketNext — on these lines to all the state associations.
The CoA has said that there have been certain developments due to which it has become necessary to issue further communication to the state associations. This despite the clear instruction from the three-member bench that the submissions made by the Amicus Curiae are to be deliberated by them. The BCCI state associations and the office-bearers had readied their suggestions and submitted to the Amicus Curiae and the bench had reiterated that the finalisation of the draft constitution would depend on its order and it would be binding.
But now, the CoA has taken exception and gone ahead and written that it is the view of the CoA that: “It is mandatory for all State Associations (including those which have only representatives of district associations or clubs as voting members in the General Body) to grant membership with voting rights to former international players (men and women) hailing from the State. Membership with voting rights should be granted to former international players (men and women) hailing from the State prior to conduct of elections such that they shall be entitled to vote in the said elections. A list of all such former international players (men and women) who have been granted membership with voting rights shall be provided to the Committee of Administrators and put up on the website of the State Association prior to finalization of the electoral roll of the State Association by the electoral officer so that any former international players (men and women) who may have been missed out have an opportunity to have their name included therein.
“It would not be appropriate for any State Association (including any State Association that has or may hereafter be declared compliant for the purpose of receiving funds from BCCI in terms of the orders dated 7th October 2016 and 21st October 2016 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court) to conduct elections until the New BCCI Constitution is finalized/ approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and an administrator is appointed by the concerned Hon’ble High Court to administer the affairs of the said State Association pending elections. Notwithstanding the above, in relation to DDCA, HCA, JKCA and MCA, the respective administrators will be entitled to proceed as per the orders passed by the concerned Hon’ble High Courts regarding conduct of elections but are requested to remain in charge of the affairs of the relevant State Association until the New BCCI Constitution is finalized/ approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (in the event further changes to the respective constitutions/ bye-laws of that State Association become necessary on account of such finalization/ approval); and where the term/ tenure of the current office bearers of a State Association is over and/or elections are due, the concerned Hon’ble High Court may be approached either by the said State Association itself and/or any member thereof for appointment of an administrator to administer the affairs of the said State Association pending elections.”
Clearly, the CoA is looking to get administrators appointed to oversee affairs of state associations. The committee seems to have ignored the intent of the SC wherein it has clearly stated that the court will settle the draft constitution subject to the outcome of the state associations’ application. The action of the CoA could in fact create a case of confusion between the former players and the state associations.