Supreme Court Starts Hearing BCCI Plea To Amend Constitution, Amicus Curiae Suggests Relaxation Of Cooling Off Period Requirement

Appearing before a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, Amicus Curiae, Mr. Maninder Singh suggested that if a person has served one term (3 years) as an office-bearer of a State Association, and then they go on to serve as an office-bearer of BCCI, they should be allowed to serve two consecutive terms (6 years) in BCCI without being subjected to a cooling-off period. In other words, the Amicus suggested that the cooling off period requirement need not be applied for serving consecutive terms at the State Association and BCCI, and need be applied only after serving consecutive terms at the BCCI itself.

As per the existing Constitution, if a person has served one term (3 years) in the State Association, thereafter they can only serve one term (3 years) in BCCI, after which they would be subjected to the cooling-off period. Since one has to be an office-bearer of the State Association for contesting election for a post in the BCCI, they will always be subjected to the cooling-off right after they serve their first term in the BCCI.

Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BCCI, submitted that the proposed amendment suggests that term served in the State Association ought not to be considered for cooling-off purposes when they are serving as office bearers of BCCI. Therefore, the requirement of cooling-off will kick in only after they have served two consecutive terms in the BCCI, irrespective of the term of service in the State Association.

This proposed amendment enables the current President Sourav Ganguly and Secretary Jay Shah to continue in office despite them completing six years (3 years in State Association and 3 years in BCCI).

The rationale indicated by Mr. Mehta for seeking the said modification is that both the bodies, i.e. State Associations and BCCI are distinct, with different sets of rules and regulations. Moreover the term of three years, after which cooling-off sets in as per the present constitution, is too short a time period to demonstrate leadership.

Mr. Mehta asserted that the amendment takes care of the concern that no one is perennially in charge of the BCCI, as well as ensures that experience gathered during their tenure at the State Association is not wasted.

The other disqualifications where relaxation was sought was the bar on the ministers, government servants or persons holding public offices from contesting BCCI elections. The Solicitor General submitted that though ministers and government servants might not be interested, there are cricketers who have assumed public office, but might be keen to contest the BCCI election. The disqualification as it stands today would screen out these experienced cricketers who are working at public offices. He added that the other disqualification was with respect to those who held any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from cricket. In this regard he submitted -

"There are several persons who have contributed to cricket but they are working in furtherance of other games. I don't want to take names, but one of the finest cricketers is now doing tremendous service in golf. "

He emphasised that if relaxation is not granted then Indian cricket would be deprived of the contribution of such great players.

However, Justice Chandrachud noted that the constitution merely states that if a person is already an office-bearer of an Association of another sport, they cannot contest the BCCI election.

"So the (existing) constitution only says that if you are office-bearer of associations of other sports you don't be part of the cricket association. At the same time the person cannot be in more than one place."

Thereafter, Solicitor General apprised the Bench about the age bar of 70 years, which is being proposed to be removed.

"We want the restriction (disqualification) of 70 years to go away so far as our representation in ICC."

Justice Chandrachud opined that the younger office-bearers could also represent BCCI effectively.

"Let the younger people represent."

Mr. Mehta asserted that experience and networking would be crucial to represent BCCI at ICC and for the same reason the age bar should be done away with.

"ICC is a different game altogether. There is negotiation...networking is important…We want people with some stature."

The proposed amendments also seek to remove the bar from holding a post in the General Council after acting as an office bearer of the BCCI for 9 years. Mr. Mehta clarified that being a part of the committee is not the same as being an office-bearer of the BCCI.

At present the BCCI is to take approval of the Apex Court before amending its constitution. In this regard, Mr. Mehta suggested that considering that BCCI is an autonomous body, the said condition of seeking approval can be done away with.

"Now that due to your lordship's indulgence everything is in proper condition, the taking approval from the court to amend the constitution further may be done away with. Because they are autonomous bodies, autonomous functioning is built in."

The Counsel representing a Cricket association in Bihar objected to the amendments sought by the Solicitor General. According to him, the approval mechanism ought not to be done away with or else BCCI will assume absolute power and the whole exercise would be futile. Moreover, he argued that the age bar of 70 years should not be lifted, as all sports regulations across the globe, including the National Sports Code promotes youths' participation in managerial posts.

Justice Chandrachud disagreed -

"Cricketers' shelf-life is limited. However, saying, for holding managerial posts you must be a youth is a little far-fetched. Why cannot a representative sent to ICC be more than 70 years old?"

He added -

"These are autonomous institutions, and should not be micromanaged to this extent."

With respect to cooling-off period the Counsel suggested that after serving two consecutive terms in State Association, one should undergo a cooling-off period and thereafter move on to BCCI where they can again serve a consecutive term of 2 years.

The Court is likely to pronounce orders tomorrow in the matter.

[Case Status: BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar CA No. 4235/2014]