Does The SC Order Mark The End Of BCCI’s Autonomy?

The Supreme Court of India released its final order against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) yesterday and as was widely expected, it came down hard on Indian cricket’s governing body. Accepting Justice Lodha Committee’s recommendations in totality and taking heed of the various status reports filed by the committee in the past few months, the Court ruled that the BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke be removed immediately, and all other ineligible BCCI officials should step aside as well. With a roadmap for implementation of the committee’s recommendations, the Court also ruled that a committee of administrators would be appointed to govern cricket in a separate ruling slated for January 19.
Citing ineffectual leadership and impediments to the implementation of the Courts’ July 18, 2016, ruling for its decision, along with a show cause notice to Thakur for perjury charges against him, both Thakur and Shirke are the biggest casualties of this standoff, and they have seemingly accepted this outcome. They are, however, hardly the only ones. The Board and the state associations will all see a radical transformation, and already a few state associations have come out and said they will comply with the Court’s final order.
The beginning of the end of the BCCI as we know it came with the now infamous affidavit that Thakur submitted to the Court in which he detailed his conversation with now-International Cricket Council (ICC) Chairman, Shashank Manohar. The controversy hinged on whether or not the BCCI (through Thakur) had requested a letter from the ICC stating that one of the Lodha Committee recommendations – that a member of the apex committee would be a representative from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India – would essentially be governmental interference and grounds for derecognising the Board. Manohar, when asked to share his account of what transpired in the meeting that took place in Dubai on August 6 and 7, just three weeks removed from the Court’s July 18 verdict, had a very different account. While Thakur in his affidavit claimed that he had merely requested a letter from Manohar that stated his position on this issue from when he was the BCCI President, Manohar told the Court that he was asked to provide a letter in his capacity as President of the ICC.
The question of ‘capacity’ is of course critical, and the Court felt Thakur had erred. What made matters worse was that another Board member, Ratnakar Shetty, provided an affidavit that contradicted both accounts and categorically stated that Thakur had never requested any letter at all. Minutes of the Board’s meeting from August 22, which reiterated Thakur’s account, were submitted to the Court’s representatives. This made things worse. In its final order, the Court has questioned the authenticity of the minutes and implied that the minutes were fabricated recently, to try and put the Board in a favourable light. This could mean trouble for Thakur.
No one knows for sure what actually took place at that meeting, and it doesn’t matter anymore. Thakur finds himself in a lot of discomfort, exiled, a looming contempt of court action against him for perjury, and an eerie silence from the central government with respect to any remedial action such as a sports law that could give the Board a fighting chance at returning to the helm of cricket.
It didn’t have to be this way. At each juncture, the BCCI was given opportunities to reform or to at least engage in dialogue. All the way back from when it began with the Indian Premier League’s (IPL) spot-fixing controversy in 2013, leading to this eventuality, the Board was given many chances to self-regulate. Now, there seems no viable way back to being an autonomous private body, and the Board and its constituents have no one left to blame but themselves.
The Lodha Committee recommendations on their own were an idealist roadmap for sports reform, and if the committee and the Court had not felt antagonised by the BCCI’s awkward defiance and ill-advised silence, there’s a strong likelihood that the more irksome recommendations to the Board could have been negotiated to a mutually acceptable position. Now it’s too late.
There remain many unanswered questions as cricket administration in India enters uncharted, unplanned and (until recently) unimaginable territory. It’s not a slam-dunk victory for reformists or those who felt the BCCI exemplified all that is wrong with sports in India. In just over two weeks, the Court will pass an order confirming a committee of administrators who will, ironically, perform extremely similar functions to those performed (and performed well) by the erstwhile BCCI.
The selection of these administrators has been left to two eminent lawyers, who will probably consult with the Lodha Committee. For a sport that has strived to free itself of the clutches of ‘lifers’ from the bureaucratic and political circles, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. If, and this would be ideal, the role of the administrators is to see out this transition phase while ensuring the Board and the State Associations comply with the Court’s July 18 ruling, then things are looking up. Especially if in the next few months elections are conducted from among eligible candidates in a transparent and accountable manner, as set out by the Lodha Committee.
But, if instead the committee of administrators are merely replacing the BCCI, then there are quite a few causes for concern. An unelected, subjectively-selected committee of individuals tasked with running a sport in which India is an elite member, could not only set off a worrying precedent of Court involvement in all sports in India, but would also be a blow to the tenets of a meritocracy. Even the immediate future of who will run the BCCI is remarkably uncertain. It appears that none of the Board’s vice-presidents are eligible to remain members of the BCCI under the Lodha Committee eligibility directives and neither is the joint-secretary pegged to replace Shirke as secretary. So, starting now, the BCCI may have no leadership at all. Period.
A similar outcome can be expected at the state association level as well. The IPL too is stuck in limbo, with the franchises and others invested in the league uncertain about what the future holds. Is this the ideal position for Indian cricket to be in? Probably not, but that’s what it is.
The Court’s final ruling will be a deeply polarising one – pitting the advocates of sports reform who are exulting, against the free-market proponents who will find judicial interference in overtaking India’s de facto national sport an unnecessary action on the Court’s part. The next phase will be one of adjustment and operational transition. The July 18, 2016 verdict and the January 2, 2017 order will be amongst the most meaningful across sports worldwide. The outcome and the precedential value though, will only be apparent in the quite distant future.

 The writer is a sports attorney and author of ‘Not Out! The incredible story of the Indian Premier League.’