Sports

The Supreme Court said it was not possible to micromanage BCCI’s operations; to pass the term of office bearer | News about cricket


NEW DELHI: BCCI is an autonomous body and it cannot micromanage its operations, as observed by the Supreme Court, which on Tuesday also asked the country’s top cricket body why it wanted people over 70 years old representing the country in ICC.
The apex court remarks came during a hearing on the Council’s call to seek amendments to its constitution with regard to the tenure of office bearers including the President of the Council. Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah by eliminating the mandatory cooling off period between the terms of office holders in the state cricket associations and the BCCI.
The Supreme Court, which said that the cooling-off period would not be annulled mid-terms for office bearers because “the purpose of the cooling-down period is no vested interest”, said it would continue. with Wednesday’s hearing and adoption. order.
Under the constitution adopted by the BCCI, a head of office must undergo a period of three years of inactivity between two consecutive terms in state association or BCCI or both combined.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BCCI, told Judges DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli that the game of cricket was essentially properly organized in the country.
He filed that the apex court had said that when the goodbye law would go into functional preparation, some changes could be made while the court was out.
He said that BCCI is a self-governing body and all changes have been reviewed by the AGM of the cricket body.
While the submission was being made, the bench said “BCCI is an autonomous body. We cannot micromanage its operations.”
Mehta said, “As the constitution exists today, there is a cooling off period. If I am the head of the state cricket association for one term and the BCCI for another consecutive term, then I have to go through a period of time. cool-down period”.
He added that both agencies are different and their rules are different and that two consecutive terms of office holder are too short for grassroots leadership development.
The Solicitor General said, “Leadership developed at the grassroots level and it remained in the state association. At that point, his time was right to be elevated to BCCI; he had to go through a phase. three-year mandatory cooling-off period. One cannot become a member of BCCI if he is not an active member of the state association”.
He added that holding a position in the state association of a head of the BCCI office should not be considered during the cooling down period.
While the submission was being made, Justice Chandrachud warned, “We are engaged in discussion and not passing any judgment. Social media thinks whatever we say in court is judgment but it’s just a dialogue to give a reaction and better understand the facts.”
The manager argued that therefore an office head of a state association could not hold a position in BCCI, without having undergone three years of cooling-off period under the current constitution.
Mehta said that the court’s concern was that no one should be held accountable for long in the cricket body and that concern was addressed by proposing a cooling-off period, after two consecutive terms in the BCCI, as so the experience of “deserving administrators” is not wasted.
He said the second amendment concerns the 70-year-old restriction on the governing body to represent the International Cricket Council, which BCCI wants to be removed.
The bench said: “Why should we let the over-70s, let the young people represent the country in the ICC? We’re not saying over-70s don’t do exemplary work, but it’s one We have our lawyers. The general is over 70, and the doctors over 70 are exemplary in their field”.
Mehta said, “The ICC is a council where it is decided, which country gets how much money. There are tough negotiations between veterans from cricket organizations all over the world. The young man of I’m going to have to deal with these veterans who have 30-40 years of experience in dealing with cricket.”
He added that there is no age limit for ICC representatives anywhere in the world.
The bench said: “You mean that the Australian Cricket Council or the England and Wales Cricket Council don’t have any age restrictions on ICC representation? Show us the documents in the lake. We don’t have any documents before us on that matter. You put it”.
The bench said it would resume the hearing on Wednesday and asked amicus curiae senior campaigner Maninder Singh to collate all the details.
Bench said it will pass the order.
Singh suggests that if a person has served a three-year term as a position holder of a state association and he then continues to serve as a holder of office in BCCI, then he should be allowed to serve two consecutive terms for six years. in the cricket’s body without having to undergo the mandatory three-year cooling period.
BCCI, in its proposed amendment, sought to abolish the cool-down period for those in charge of the office, which would allow Sourav Ganguly and Jay Shah to continue serving as Chairman and Secretary despite they completed six years at their respective state cricket associations.
Earlier, the Judiciary committee headed by RM Lodha recommended reforms in the BCCI that were accepted by the highest court.





Source link

news5s

News5s: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button