BCCI faces SC wrath for defiant attitude towards reforms

The apex court decided to pass an order on the issue of implementation of directions of the committee headed by former CJI Lodha on Friday after the counsel for BCCI declined to give an “unconditional undertaking by tomorrow” that it will seek instructions to stop funds to the state bodies and abide by the panel's recommendations.

"Let there be no domestic matches in that case," a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said after BCCI's counsel Kapil Sibal said if payments to the state associations are stopped, the domestic season would be at stake as 18 state bodies have written to the Board that they cannot hold these matches which have already started.

"You must not create a defiant attitude. This is not going to lead you anywhere," the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said emphasising that transparency, fairness and objectivity were the most important aspects in all decisions including disbursal of funds by BCCI.

Expressing anguish over BCCI "hurriedly" disbursing about Rs 400 crore to state bodies which were reluctant to accept the recommendations for reforms, the bench said, "we are being forced into a situation that they are asking for our interference" with the Lodha panel also recommending "superseding" of the existing office-bearers with court- appointed administrators of "impeccable integrity".

The apex court decided to pass an order on the issue of implementation of directions of the committee headed by former CJI Lodha tomorrow after the counsel for Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) declined to give an "unconditional undertaking by tomorrow" that it will seek instructions to stop funds to the state bodies and abide by the panel's recommendations.

When the bench asked "are you going to give an unconditional undertaking tomorrow after seeking instruction," Sibal said "it is very difficult." 

"Then we will pass an order," said the bench, which was also pained at BCCI's stance that the verdicts and directions of the apex court and the Lodha panel were contrary to statutory provisions.