The Supreme Court's judgment based on the Lodha Committee's recommendations for reforming the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have been described widely as being much-needed, landmark, and far-reaching. The court's wide-ranging order, it is hoped, will bring an end to BCCI's arrogance and the brazen manner in which the sporting monolith cared zilch for accountability, transparency and fairness. All three words were anathema to the over-aged mandarins running the apex cricket body—one which only became more opaque with every dollar/rupee that it raked in.
In many ways the BCCI and its officials had functioned with impunity just like the Sahara Group and its supremo Subrata Ray had—they did what they pleased and cocked a sneering snook at widespread criticism and emerging public discourse. And like Sahara, the BCCI had enough time to amend and ameliorate matters, but like the Lucknow-based corporate entity, the collective hubris of the controllers of cricket prevented them from realising that they were charging headlong at that resolute wall which would bring the juggernaut to a grinding and humbling halt: the Supreme Court.
But will this order change things at all? Certain matters may be open to speculation, just as some possibilities are certain. The 70-year cap on the age of officials and the ceiling of nine years for an office-bearer come into play immediately. Those like Mumbai Cricket Association head Sharad Pawar are beyond the 70-year threshold, and people like Delhi District Cricket Association vice-president Chetan Chauhan and Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association chairman Jyotiraditya Scindia have completed nine years in office. They will all go, just as would at least 20 others; and not-so-familiar names will become the new faces of a number of cricket associations. The SC has also accepted a crucial recommendation of the Lodha Committee, and laid down the eligibility criteria for officebearers, unambiguously stating that ministers and bureaucrats will henceforth not be allowed to hold BCCI positions.
There remains a grey area here. Ministers and bureaucrats may have been cleansed from the system, but parliamentarians and legislators can still be part of the cricket ecosystem. In other words, powerful politicians can still control the state of affairs through either their minions or the respective families. The BCCI after all is all about power, and the power-hungry always find a way to wrest power or rule through pliable surrogates. In a country where rule by proxy is a feudal tradition and where many families have held sway over cricket associations for decades, this will remain an area for concern. On this count, course corrections may probably have to be carried out in the future.
Nevertheless, it is important to note what the bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla remarked, "Need of the hour observed the Committee was not of making cosmetic changes but those that are fundamental for laying proper foundations on which BCCI could function in a professional and transparent manner bringing cricket back to its pristine form and restoring the confidence of cricketers and lovers of the game alike." In that, the Supreme Court has set the ball rolling; all it now needs to do is ensure that matters run on auto-pilot, and that this mechanism remains fool-proof. Since the court has asked the Lodha panel to oversee matters over the next six months during which the BCCI will have to clean its Augean stables, it is quite possible that panel will come up with more guidelines, and that the court will heed its subsequent recommendations too.
There is another aspect that could have been addressed—the role of businesspersons. While ministers and bureaucrats have had their wings clipped, businesspeople can still be in control. This is important because one of the main allegations against the BCCI was always this: that it was run not like a sports organisation, but like a business. Unfortunately, the corporate flaw will linger on.
By accepting the suggestion that a nominee of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India should be in the BCCI to clamp down on monetary irregularities, the court will probably be able to minimise the financial skulduggery that the board was always accused of. On the other hand, by driving the ball into Parliament on whether the BCCI should come under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, it has possibly left a loophole remain unplugged. It would be interesting to see how Parliament reacts, for two reasons. First, the present government has been trying hard to dilute the RTI Act itself; and second, politicians are already among the biggest losers in the BCCI restructuring process.
Then again, cricket is not the only sport around, and it is not the only game whose fortunes are decided by politicians and bureaucrats. But if the Lodha panel's recommendations work, the template could be enlarged to or customised for other sports. But will politicians agree? After all, the National Sports Development Bill 2013, which was an inspiration for the Lodha Committee, has been hanging fire for three years now. It was a Bill that promised to free sports from the clutches of politicians and bureaucrats, but has been largely ignored by the political alliance now in power at the Centre.
