Application filed in SC against BCCI’s bid for extension for Ganguly, Shah

Sourav Ganguly and Jay Shah (TOI Photo)

MUMBAI: Jharkhand Cricket Association life member Naresh K Malkani has filed an application (a copy is with TOI) in the Supreme Court to derail the BCCI’s plans to allow former India captain Sourav Ganguly and Jay Shah to stay in the BCCI office till 2025 as the Board president and secretary.
Malkani, who claims himself to be a whistleblower in the IPL match-fixing case in 2013, has alleged that the BCCI is seeking to “amend its constitution and dilute the Justice Lodha Committee recommendations with a mala fide intention”. The application, if accepted by the Supreme Court, may damage the BCCI’s plea to allow president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah to extend their tenure in the board.
Both Ganguly and Shah have completed six consecutive years as cricket administrators – combined in their state cricket associations and the BCCI. As per the present constitution of the board, it is now mandatory for them to serve a three-year cooling-off period.
However, the BCCI General Body in December last year had amended the constitution and subsequently sought permission from the Supreme Court to do so. The BCCI wants to amend the “cooling off period” clause in a way that the term in the BCCI office is separated from the term as an office-bearer in the state units.
The BCCI wants to amend Rule 6.4 of the constitution, which reads as: “An office-bearer who has held any post for two consecutive terms either in a State association or in the BCCI (or in a combination of both) shall not be eligible to contest any further election without completing a cooling-off period of three years….” to “A President or Secretary who has served in such a position for two consecutive terms in the BCCI shall not be eligible to contest any further election without completing a cooling-off period of three years….”
Furthermore, the BCCI also wants to amend the clause that makes it mandatory for it to seek the approval of the Supreme Court to implement any amendments in the board’s constitution. At present, the clause reads that “These Rules and Regulations of the BCCI shall not be repealed, added to, amended or altered except when passed and adopted by a 3/4th majority of the members present and entitled to vote at a Special General Meeting of the General Body convened for the purpose or at the Annual General meeting. Any such amendment will not be given effect to without the leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
The board wants to amend it to as “These Rules and Regulations of the BCCI shall not be repealed, added to, amended or altered except when passed and adopted by a 3/4th majority of the members present and entitled to vote at a Special General Meeting of the General Body convened for the purpose or at the Annual General meeting.”
The BCCI application has been listed for August 17 along with the BCCI vs Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) case. CAB president Aditya Verma has already said that his lawyers will not object to the BCCI application. and leave it solely to the apex court’s discretion.
Makani has pleaded that the present BCCI constitution was adopted on the directions of the Justice Lodha Committee, which had recommended the implementation of an amended constitution for the BCCI. He has alleged that the present BCCI administration, comprising president Sourav Ganguly, secretary Jay Shah, treasurer Arun Dhumal, and joint secretary Jayesh George, in the first meeting of the board on December 1 last year had passed the agenda to dilute the Lodha Committee recommendations with a mala fide intention.
Shah’s tenure as the BCCI secretary had ended in May, while Ganguly completed his term in the BCCI office on July 27.
Malkani has alleged that the (BCCI) meeting called by Shah in July was illegal, since he was disqualified as per the tenure clause. The petition also alleges that Mahim Verma’s resignation as the Board vice-president has not been accepted and he also continues to be the secretary of the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand.
The petitioner has argued that if the Supreme Court agrees to allow the reforms to be diluted, then N Srinivasan should be made the president of the BCCI, and Sanjay Jagdale and Anurag Thakur too should be allowed to return and helm the BCCI.
Malkani has alleged that “under the garb of the dilution of reforms, the BCCI administration is trying to seize the Board’s affairs”.
He has urged the SC to direct that the office-bearers as of the financial year 2013-14 be installed to helm the affairs BCCI and the present administration be directed to comply with the recommendations of the Lodha Committee and serve the cooling-off period.
Earlier, Makani had urged Justice L Nageswara Rao, one of the two judges in the Bench, to recuse himself from the case. Justice Rao is hearing the BCCI matter along with Chief Justice Mr Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde.

Source link

Ojas

%d bloggers like this: