For my own reference, collating some of my writings on the Committee of Administrators appointed by the Supreme Court to oversee the reforms in the Board of Control for Cricket in India. It has been nearly 16 months since the CoA was appointed. The Lodha Panel itself tried to bring in the reforms but recommended that Administrators be appointed to ensure that BCCI would comply with the Lodha report as accepted by the Supreme Court on July 18, 2016.
August 24, 2017 (FirstPost.com): BCCI-COA tussle over implementation of constitutional changes turning out to be a timeless Test
It is interesting that on Wednesday, the Supreme Court did not accept the CoA recommendation to sack the three key BCCI office-bearers for non-compliance. Instead, Acting President CK Khanna, Acting Secretary Amitabh Choudhary and Treasurer Anirudh Chaudhry have been asked to explain why the Supreme Court order of 18 July, 2016 has not been implemented.
That is not the only place where the CoA’s enthusiasm appears to have been brushed aside. In its fifth Status Report, it prayed Supreme Court for directions to conduct elections in State Associations, establish a new funds disbursement policy, form a committee to conduct forensic audit of each State Association.
August 17, 2017 (FirstPost.com): CoA’s status report on BCCI a sound tactic, but doesn’t help in implementation of Lodha Panel reforms
It was always clear to anyone who has observed cricket administration that the CoA would have to employ a bottom-up State Associations first approach rather than attempt to reform BCCI with a top-down philosophy. For, if BCCI has to embrace a new constitution, it needs a 75 percent majority and the present dispensation from each state would not let that happen.
And that could happen only if those attending the meeting accept, understand, implement and adhere to the Supreme Court’s order in letter and spirit. Instead of seeking to ensure that the constituents of a BCCI meeting were those who bought into the Supreme Court order, CoA wasted a lot of time in talking to them, even getting ready to represent BCCI’s issues before the court. It was trying a carrot-and-stick policy when it was only assigned the task of implementing the court order.
The CoA has finally arrived at the conclusion that state/member associations of BCCI have no desire to implement the fundamental core of the reforms mandated by the Supreme Court. Curiously, CoA asked state units for details of grievance redressal officers only on 8 June and, more importantly, details of their membership only on at the beginning of August.
July 14 (FirstPost.com): Ravi Shastri named India coach: SC needs to quickly restore sanity amidst COA-CAC-BCCI chaos
From a distance, and if it has the time away from the dozens of matters of utmost importance that it hears and adjudicates upon each day, even the highest court in the country could be left wondering if its choice of people for the COA was the best. Two of the COA members were relieved by the court on 14 June and a third has played the media with delight and impunity.
The sooner the Supreme Court restores sanity within the portals of BCCI the greater will be the chances that the country’s apex cricket body will regain its name as Board of Control for Cricket in India.
June 30, 2017 (The Tribune): No back-foot strokes, just reform BCCI
Until its meeting with State Cricket Associations on June 25, it had made precious little effort to usher in change in the governance model. Why was there such a delay in understanding and enforcing the Supreme Court’s clear orders? In the past few months, BCCI has used the CoA’s diffused interest in the reforms to successfully divert attention to other areas.
The CoA’s mandate is to administer the reforms Supreme Court has ordered in BCCI. Clearly, it is not to seek to impress upon the Supreme Court on behalf of BCCI on the three contentious issues: one-state-one-vote; 70-year age cap; cooling-off period. As anyone who has followed the case in the Supreme Court would know, the time for negotiations is long gone.
In his media interactions, Vinod Rai suggested that the CoA could not call the shots since whatever it said was contested by BCCI office-bearers or state associations. He also said the CoA wanted to give sufficient time to state units to think how to go about it and make the necessary changes. Besides, he said, CoA would attempt to get them to make changes rather than imposing things on them.
Clearly, Rai — like Ramachandra Guha wrote in his letter after quitting the CoA — believes that the Supreme Court wanted CoA to implement the Lodha Committee “recommendations”. If he has been quoted right, he appears to have overlooked the small matter of the Supreme Court having embraced the recommendations in toto, and ordered these to be implemented.
The sooner CoA gets its focus back on the Supreme Court’s order to bring in the reforms the better it will be. That Indian cricket needs a better governance structure has been clearly established by the apex Court. Neither the Lodha Committee nor the CoA have been able to get down to the brass tacks in bringing in the desired change in the BCCI’s state units and in the BCCI itself.
June 3, 2017 (CatchNews.com): Poor timing apart, Guha’s bombshell reveals even CoA can’t handle BCCI rot
One of CoA’s most important tasks is the improvement in the governance structure of the BCCI and its state units. From a distance, it does appear that the CoA has done little to set things in order.
Instead of focusing on getting the state units to comply with the Lodha Committee recommendations, which were approved by the Supreme Court, CoA trained its guns elsewhere.
Should the CoA have been wetting its feet in administrative and cricketing issues? Certainly not, especially since it was draining into its energy and time. Things like the change of the women’s team coach or the drama over the men’s coach should easily have been left to the administrative set up within BCCI.
January 30, 2017 (CatchNews.com): Meet the four people appointed by SC to clean up BCCI. They have an onerous task
The BCCI general body, which alone can make the statute changes, will need the coming together of the representatives of the affiliated state associations. It implies that the state associations must comply with the Lodha Committee recommendations first, before they can nominate anyone to attend the BCCI general body meeting.
Clearly, reforms in the BCCI can be ushered in only when they have been implemented at the lower level, the state associations. It’s a huge task for the CoA to ensure that the state associations restrict the tenures of their office-bearers and prescribe disqualifications, do away with proxy voting, provide transparency in functioning, be open to scrutiny and audit by the BCCI and include players in membership and management, as envisaged by the Lodha Committee.
The four-member CoA will surely need help from more than a few to ensure that all state associations fall in line, so that the BCCI can become Lodha-compliant as well. The Lodha Committee identified that it was important to have a uniformity in the constitution and functioning of the state Associations.