Cricinfo Lodha Panel

Corruption in IPL January 22, 2015
New panel to take call on Kundra, Meiyappan
A newly-formed committee will decide on the punishment to be imposed on Raj Kundra and
Gurunath Meiyappan, both of whom were found guilty of betting by the Supreme Court. The
court said that "the order passed by the committee shall be final and binding upon the BCCI
and the parties concerned. "Headed by former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha and including
former Supreme Court judges Ashok Bhan and RV Raveendran, the committee will also
examine the role of former IPL chairman Sundar Raman "and if found guilty, impose a
suitable punishment upon him on behalf of BCCI".
The court said that it contemplated whether to impose suitable punishment itself or leave it to
the BCCI, but decided that "neither of these two courses would be appropriate". The
formation of an independent committee, the judgment said, was to ensure the transparency of
investigation and address "any apprehension of bias and/or influence".
"We do not consider it proper to clutch at the jurisdiction of BCCI to impose a suitable
punishment," the order said. "At the same time we do not think that in a matter like this the
award of a suitable punishment to those liable for such punishment can be left to the BCCI.
"The trajectory of the present litigation, and the important issues it has raised as also the
profile of the individuals who have been indicted, would, in our opinion, demand that the
award of punishment for misconduct is left to an independent committee to exercise that
power for and on the behalf of BCCI." Apart from investigating the roles of the three
individuals, the committee has been asked to make recommendations and suggest
amendments to the processes followed by the board "with a view to preventing sporting
frauds, conflict of interests, streamlining the working of BCCI to make it more responsive to
the expectations of the public at large". A grey area that the court has suggested the committee
to examine and resolve is the conflict of interest in case of "persons, who by virtue of their
proficiency in the game, were to necessarily play some role as coaches, managers,
commentators."
The court also directed the board to bear the fees and all the expenses of the committee, and
hoped the investigations could be concluded "within a period of six months".
India news
April 14, 2015
Board panel has 82 questions for BCCI bosses
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
The RM Lodha committee appointed by India's Supreme Court has sent an 82-point
questionnaire to top board administrators seeking clarity on the way the richest sports body in
India functions. This questionnaire, incisive and pointed, is in keeping with the committee's
brieffrom the court to recommend changes to the BCCI's constitution and manner of
functioning. The questions have been split into eight sections, including understanding how
the BCCI and its stakeholders function, the basis and formation of the board's various
committees, the board's election process, players' welfare, conflict of interest and transparency
in the IPL. The questionnaire was sent by the committee on April 7 to all those who have held
top positions in the BCCI since the IPL corruption scandal broke in May 2013. They included
N Srinivasan, Sanjay Jagdale, Ajay Shirke, Anurag Thakur, Sanjay Patel, Ravi Savant,
Anirudh Chaudhry, Amitabh Chaudhary and Jagmohan Dalmiya. There was also a request to
be present in person to interact with the panel in Mumbai on April 9 and 10. It is understood
that Dalmiya and board secretary Anurag Thakur pulled out despite having confirmed last
Wednesday evening the schedule of their arrival.
Five key questions

What are your views on the BCCI being constituted as - (i) Society under the
Societies' Registration Act; (ii) Company under the Companies Act; (iii) Public Trust?
Which is best suited and why?
What is the basis for zonal rotation of the President? Would it not be appropriate to
have open elections for the posts? Can a candidate contest from a zone/region to which he
does not belong?
On what basis does the BCCI nominate Indian representatives on the ICC and its
various committees? Is there an electoral college and what are the parameters of selection?
On what basis are tour managers and technical crew for the teams selected? Are there
tests and interviews? Are these advertised? What is the remuneration for these and do
these engagements have tenures or are they open-ended?
To what extent are players represented on the board and is there any channel for their
grievances to be aired?
While passing its seminal and wide-ranging order on corruption in the IPL, the court had
appointed an independent three-man committee headed by Lodha, a former Chief Justice of
India, along with retired Supreme Court judges Ashok Bhan and RV Raveendran. The
committee was tasked with determining the quantum of punishment for Gurunath Meiyappan,
Raj Kundra and their respective franchises, and also to "examine and make suitable
recommendations to the BCCI for such reforms in its practices and procedures and such
amendments in the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations as may be considered
necessary and proper." It is understood that the committee, while carrying out the research
before it finalised the questionnaire, was concerned about the ad-hoc manner of the BCCI's
functioning. So it sought clarity on aspects like the structural component of the BCCI and the
IPL, where the BCCI sources its power from, how the elections are conducted, how are the
funds allocated to various stakeholders to name a few areas. One key point in the entire IPL
corruption case is the issue of conflict of interest in N Srinivasan, the BCCI president at the
time, being the owner of the Chennai Super Kings franchise, facilitated by an amendment to the
board's constitution while Srinivasan was secretary. The Supreme Court had struck down the
controversial constitutional amendment that allowed board officials to have commercial
interests in the IPL and the Champions League Twenty20, calling it "the true villain of the
situation at hand." So the Lodha committee wanted to know whether there is a "consultation
process" for amending the Constitution and bye-laws and if the BCCI provides "explanation
and justification" for such measures. It also raised the question as to how would the BCCI
establish when a player or a team official had a conflict of interest. "When a player/team
official of an IPL team is the employee of the franchisee/owner of another team, does BCCI
perceive a Conflict of Interest? What steps are taken prevent such situations? "Laying special
emphasis on player welfare the committee raised 16 questions on the subject including seeking
the BCCI's views on if there should be a players association. India is the only country not to
have one. The committee wanted to know whether players form part of the board's constitution
and if there is a platform for them to air grievances. "Who negotiates contracts on behalf of the
players? Are the players consulted by the Board before team sponsorship and endorsement
deals are entered into?" was another key question Lodha's team wanted to know.
Transparency was another area the committee laid emphasis on. Twice the panel pointed out
whether there was an independent regulator governing important events such as the board
elections. "Is there an independent ombudsman for general oversight over the functioning of
the BCCI and IPL and what powers are available to it?" the committee asked. It was also
interested to know whether the BCCI or the IPL has "a whistleblower/immunity policy"?
Although majority of the 82 questions were basic in nature, the panel possibly revealed the
broad nature of its inquiry in the final question: "Do you have any suggestions to improve the
accountability, elections, governance, transparency and general administration of the game,
thereby improving overall integrity of cricket?" Reactions within the BCCI are conflicted.
While one official downplayed the issue, saying the process was routine, another insider
admitted the questionnaire gives the first indication of the "gravity of ramifications" the report
could have on the administration of the game in India.
With inputs from Amol Karhadkar
India news
July 11, 2015
Lodha panel to announce

punishment for Kundra,
Gurunath
The Lodha panel will announce the quantum of punishment for Gurunath
Meiyappan for his involvement in the IPL 2013 corruption scandal Hindustan
Times
The three-member panel headed by former Chief

Justice of India, RM Lodha, will, on Tuesday,
announce the quantum of punishment for
Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj Kundra and the teams
they were part of - Chennai Super Kings and
Rajasthan Royals respectively - for their alleged
involvement in the IPL 2013 corruption scandal.
The Lodha committee was appointed on

January 22 by the Supreme Court to decide on
the punishment for Kundra, Gurunath and their
respective franchises. Kundra and Gurunath had
been found guilty of betting by the Supreme
Court. The committee had been given six months
to pronounce its decision.
Gurunath had been chargesheeted in the IPL
2013 corruption scandal and though Kundra
wasn't among those chargesheeted, he was found
guilty by the first Supreme Court-appointed
Justice Mukul Mudgal committee of betting on
IPL matches.
The court had also directed the Lodha panel,

which also includes former judges Ashok Bhan
and RV Raveendran, to make recommendations
and suggest amendments to the processes
followed by the BCCI. The panel is likely to seek
more time to announce its findings on the
restructuring of BCCI administration. Senior
BCCI functionaries are likely to discuss the
possible ramifications of the Lodha panel
findings in a conference call on Sunday.
Corruption in the IPL July 13, 2015
IPL spot-fixing: The key events

With the Lodha panel set to pronounce a
quantum of punishment to Gurunath
Meiyappan and Raj Kundra for their
involvement in the IPL 2013 scandal,
ESPNcricinfo looks back at the most
important events in the IPL 2013 spot-
fixing scandal - from the arrests of the
three Rajasthan Royals players to the
Supreme Court's intervention following the
BCCI's controversial investigation into the
matter. What started as a probe into the
involvement of IPL franchise owners in the
scandal has also had far-reaching effects
on the BCCI, with the courts stepping into
censure the board over conflict of interest
issues.
May 16, 2013

S Sreesanth, Ankeet Chavan and Ajit
Chandila are arrested by the Delhi Police on
charges of fraud and cheating, for the alleged
fulfillment of promises made to bookies. Eleven
bookies are also arrested. The BCCI reacts
by suspending the three players. All three
players are later released on bail.
May 23
The Mumbai Police summons Gurunath
Meiyappan, a top official of the Chennai Super
Kings franchise and son-in-law of former BCCI
president N Srinivasan, for questioning in
connection with betting in the IPL. He
is arrested on May 24 on charges of cheating,
fraud and forgery.
May 25
In a press conference, N Srinivasan says the
board will treat the case against Gurunath
"objectively and fairly". India Cements, the
company that owns Super Kings, distances the
franchise from Gurunath, stating he is "neither
the owner, nor CEO /Team Principal of Chennai
Super Kings."
May 28
The IPL governing council appoints a three-
member probe panel, including two former High
Court judges, to look into the complaints against
India Cements, Gurunath and Jaipur IPL Pvt
Ltd, the owners of Rajasthan Royals. Questions
about the panel are raised, however, after news
emerges that members of the governing
council were unaware of when and how the
three-man commission was selected for the
inquiry.
June 6
In another setback for the IPL, Delhi's police
commissioner Neeraj Kumar says that Rajasthan
Royals co-owner Raj Kundra had confessed to
betting on IPL matches, including those
involving his team. The BCCI
then suspends Kundra pending inquiry.
July 28
The BCCI's two-member panel appointed to look
into the involvement of the owners of two IPL
franchises in the scandal finds "no evidence of
any wrongdoing" by Kundra and Gurunath.
July 30
Following a PIL by the Cricket Association of
Bihar, the Bombay High Court states that the
BCCI's probe panel was constituted illegally,
and says there was disparity in the evidence
collected by the panel.
August 30
The Supreme Court of India issues notices to
Srinivasan, BCCI, India Cements and Rajasthan
Royals on an appeal challenging the Bombay
High Court order's for not appointing a fresh
probe panel, after the two-member panel was
struck down on the grounds of being constituted
illegally.
September 13
The BCCI bans Sreesanth and Chavan from
playing cricket. The board's disciplinary
committee has not yet taken a decision on
Chandila.
September 21
Gurunath is named in a betting chargesheet
filed by the Mumbai Police on the grounds of
cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy -
including passing on information that
compromised the team - in connection with IPL
2013.
October 8
The Supreme Court constitutes a three-
member probe panel to conduct an independent
investigation into the corruption allegations in
the IPL. The panel comprises former High Court
judge Mukul Mudgal, senior advocate and
additional solicitor general L Nageshwar Rao
and Assam Cricket Association member Nilay
Dutta. The committee is given four months to
complete its probe
February 10, 2014

The Mudgal probe panel's first report finds
evidence that Gurunath and Kundra indulged
in betting. Gurunath is also charged with passing
on information during IPL 2013 and is named as
an official of the Chennai Super Kings franchise.
The panel also submits to the court a sealed
envelope - to be opened and read only by the
judges - containing the names of persons
allegedly involved in sporting fraud.
March 25
The Supreme Court asks then BCCI president N
Srinivasan to step down to allow for a fair
investigation of the IPL corruption scandal.
Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla tells the BCCI counsel:
"If there has to be a fair and dispassionate
enquiry, Mr. Srinivasan must step down." Justice
AK Patnaik questions Srinivasan's position,
asking "How did he stay on despite all the
allegations? His staying on is nauseating for
cricket."
March 27
The Supreme Court proposes that Sunil
Gavaskar replace N Srinivasan as BCCI chief,
and recommends that employees of India
Cements, of which Srinivasan is managing
director and which owns Super Kings, be kept
out of the BCCI set-up. Gavaskar takes over as
interim BCCI president, in respect of its IPL
functions, on March 28.
April 22
The Supreme Court asks the Mudgal probe
panel to continue its investigation into the IPL
corruption scandal, in particular the 13 names
mentioned in the sealed envelope submitted to
the court in February.
May 16
The Supreme Court gives the Mudgal
panel greater powers - including search and
seizure of relevant documents and recording
evidence - to investigate the contents of the
sealed envelope and the allegations in the IPL
2013 scandal. The court directs the panel to
submit a report in August.
November 14
The Supreme Court names four individuals -
Srinivasan, IPL chief operating officer Sundar
Raman, Gurunath and Kundra - in connection
with the Mudgal report into the 2013 IPL spot-
fixing case, which, the court observes, has
suggested several "misdemeanours".
November 17
The Mudgal report finds Srinivasan not guilty of
either betting or fixing, or of trying to prevent
the investigation into the IPL 2013 corruption
scandal. It states, however, that he, along with
four other BCCI officials, knew about an IPL
player violating the code of conduct, but took no
action. The report says that IPL chief operating
officer Sundar Raman knew a contact of a bookie
and had contacted him eight times in a season,
and notes that investigations into Kundra
stopped "abruptly and without reason" when the
the Rajasthan police was given information
about Kundra by the Delhi police.
January 22, 2015
The Supreme Court, in a judgment pertaining to
the IPL scandal, strikes down a controversial
clause in the BCCI's constitution that allowed
board officials to have a commercial interest in
the IPL and the Champions League T20. The
court also appoints a new three-member panel,
headed by former Chief Justice of India, RM
Lodha, to decide on the quantum of punishment
for Meiyappan and Kundra and for the respective
franchises, if necessary. The court declares that
the order passed by the Lodha committee "shall
be final and binding upon the BCCI and the
parties concerned".
Corruption in the IPLJuly 13, 2015

All you need to know ahead of
the Lodha panel verdict
AMOL KARHADKAR
Raj Kundra was found guilty of betting in the IPL by the Justice Mukul Mudgal panel
AFP
The Justice Lodha committee will, on Tuesday,
announce the quantum of punishment for
Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj Kundra and the
franchises they were part of - Chennai Super
Kings and Rajasthan Royals respectively - for
their involvement in the IPL 2013 corruption
scandal. The committee's report marks the
beginning of the end of the IPL spotfixing case,
which began in dramatic fashion more than two
years ago with the arrest of Sreesanth and other
players. It could end equally dramatically if the
committee deems the two franchises fit for the
maximum punishment. As Indian cricket holds
its breath waiting for the report, here are the key
issues for Tuesday.
What is the Lodha committee?

The Lodha committee was formed on January
22, 2015 by the Supreme Court after the Mudgal
committee, appointed as an investigator into the
IPL 2013 scandal, submitted its report. The
committee, comprising retired Chief Justice of
India, RM Lodha, and retired Supreme Court
judges, Ashok Bhan and R Raveendran, have
three main tasks to perform:
Determine appropriate punishments for

Gurunath, Kundra and their respective
franchises, Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan
Royals, following on from the Mudgal report.
Examine the role of Sundar Raman, the IPL chief
operating officer, in the IPL 2013 scandal and, if
applicable, impose a suitable punishment on him
on behalf of BCCI
Suggest amendments to the processes followed by

the BCCI with a view to preventing sporting
frauds and conflict of interests, and also
streamline the board's working to make it more
responsive to the expectations of the public at
large.
What will the Lodha committee do on July

14?
On Tuesday, the committee will announce the
punishment for Gurunath, Kundra and their
respective franchises. Both Gurunath, who is the
son-in-law of former BCCI president N
Srinivasan, and Kundra were found guilty of
betting on IPL matches by the Mudgal
committee. The respective franchises are also
under the scanner. Super Kings, who had tried to
distance themselves from Gurunath and his role
in the team, have been accused of attempting to
mislead the probe while Royals are in the dock
due to the involvement of Kundra and the arrests
of Sreesanth, Ankeet Chavan and Ajit Chandila
for spot-fixing. The committee will first hand
over its verdict to representatives of all the four
entities and could then make the verdict public
through a media briefing.
What is likely to happen with Super Kings

and Royals?
While Super Kings distanced the franchise from
Gurunath after his arrest in May 2013, Kundra
recently transferred his shares and exited Royals'
ownership group. There are four scenarios for
the franchises with the verdict.
Super Kings and Royals could be suspended or

banned from the IPL.
Both the teams could be fined heavily for

committing several code breaches.
Super Kings could be suspended/banned while

Royals could be fined.
Royals could be suspended/ banned while Super

Kings could be fined.
Can the parties appeal?

While appointing the Lodha panel, the Supreme
Court brief said: "The order passed by the
committee shall be final and binding upon the
BCCI and the parties concerned." However,
experts feel an aggrieved party may still
challenge the decision, citing several ongoing
criminal proceedings against some of the
accused.
Is this an end to the IPL 2013 corruption

saga?
No. The criminal cases against the three
cricketers - S Sreesanth, Ankeet Chavan and Ajit
Chandila - along with Gurunath are in progress
in lower courts. The cases could drag on for
years. Moreover, if the Lodha committee verdict
is challenged, it may take more time for closure.
Is the Lodha committee's work done?

No. The committee still has two responsibilities
to fulfil. The Lodha panel was set a deadline of
six months but with time running out, the
committee may seek an extension to take a
decision on Sundar Raman and make
recommendations to restructure the BCCI.
Amol Karhadkar is a correspondent at ESPNcricinfo
ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
CRICINFOUSER ON JULY 13, 2015, 20:17 GMT
Controversy doesn't seem to be far away from Indian cricket. It's almost part of their
cricket mate. Yet, Indian fans still make excuses despite all these incidents.
ESPNCRICINFOMOBILE ON JULY 13, 2015, 16:42 GMT
This summary of what is likely to take place, after the Report of Justice Lodha's
Committee becomes public, is succinct. What will happen to this blot on Indian cricket
after the Report comes out is anybody's guess. I suspect none of the four scenarios noted
can clean the mess of links between cricket and politics in India, the various issues of
conflict of interest of not only the two teams in question but also some of its members
who represent India at the highest level, and the deep and pernicious effects of such
issues on Indian cricket, will take ages to settle besides the court cases that will be
spawned after the publication of the Report. Let us not fool ourselves. The more things
appear to change, the more these remain the same.
Excerpts from the Lodha panel's

verdict
ESPNCRICINFO STAFF
Excerpts from Justice Lodha's verdict on IPL corruption

On Gurunath Meiyappan
Facing criminal charges and a judicial custody
for a period of about 10 days rather shows the
seriousness of the misconduct committed by
him. His habit of regularly placing bets in IPL
matches renders the argument of his being first
offender and unblemished antecedents in
previous IPL tournaments of no worth.
That he lost up to Rs 60 lakhs in bets shows that

he engaged himself in heavy bets. It is his bad
luck that he did not make money out of these
bets. Any agony suffered by him because of
media coverage or any hardship that may have
been caused to him is too small in comparison to
the huge injury he caused to the reputation and
image of the game, IPL and BCCI. If the
reputation and image of the sport are lost, what
remains? Being 40 years of age, he is not young
but middle-aged. It is difficult to accept that he
has passion for the game...
The committee imposes following sanctions:
He is declared ineligible for participation in the

sport of cricket as explained in the anti-
corruption code for a maximum of five years
under article 2.2.1
He is suspended for life from the activities as

explained in Article 7.5 under Level 4 ( first
offence ) of Article 2.4 of the Code of conduct
He is suspended for life from being involved in

any type of cricket matches under Section 6, rule
4.2(b) read with (j) of the Operational Rules.
Raj Kundra As part owner, having 11.4% of

share-holding by his family and investment
vehicle, and team official, Raj Kundra was
required to conduct himself in comformity with
the rules, regulations and codes framed by the
BCCI. Being UK citizen, he had heavy
responsibility on him to ensure that his acts and
actions were not in conflict with the laws of a
foreign country. Betting is a crime punishable
under the Indian Penal Code. Besides that, it is
an offence, corrupt practice under the BCCI's
rules regulations and codes. With so much of
information available online, it is very difficult to
accept that as a UK citizen, he believed betting to
be legal in India. It is no secret that some of the
players of the Rajasthan Royals of which he was
the team official were found enmeshed in a web
of match fixing . When a part owner (team
official) indulges in corrupt practices, unsavoury
individuals and bad elements become bold
enough to involve vulnerable elements including
players in all sorts of corruption. The findings by
the Hon Supreme Court of the acts of betting
have affected the image of the BCCI, IPL and the
game of cricket and brought each one of them to
disrepute and involvement in betting by team
officials is against the spirit of the game, reflect
the grave nature of misconduct he is found to be
involved with.
Sanctions:
He is declared ineligible from participation in the

sport of cricket as explained in Anti Corrupton
Code for the maximum period of 5 years under
Article 2.2.1
He is suspended for life from activities as

explained in Article 7.5 under Level 4 ( first
offence ) of Article 2.4 of the Code of Conduct.
He is suspended for life from being involved with

the BCCI in any type of cricket matches under
Section 6, rule 4.2(b) read with (j) of the
Operational Rules.
On India Cements
Moreover, Mr Gurunath Meiyappan was in the
position of owner. He is the son-in-law of Mr N
Srinivasan, managing director of India Cements,
which is a franchise of the team CSK, and Mr
Gurunath Meiyappan was considered to be the
face of the owner due to his actions. Therefore,
offences of the persons who are the face
representative of the owner would have to be
considered as acts of the owner for the purpose
of the operational rules with reference to IPL
league matches and consequently the actions of
such persons which bring the game, BCCI into
disrepute.
Not only that no urgent action was taken by
India Cements against Gurunath Meiyappan but
as a matter of fact no action has been shown to
have been taken against him. The order of
suspension passed by the BCCI against Gurunath
Meiyappan after his arrest is not an action by
India Cements against its official. The plea by
India Cements regarding long history to
contribution of cricket and cricketers cannot be
accepted in view of the fact due to the act of
Gurunath Meiyappan, team official of CSK who
happened to be son-in-law of Mr N Srinivasan,
MD of India Cements, the then BCCI president
the purity of the game has been affected and the
contribution if any made by the franchise has
also been wasted because millions of people, true
lovers of the game feel cheated. Moreover,
disrepute has been brought to cricket, BCCI and
IPL to such an extent that doubts abound in the
public consciousness about whether games are
clean or not.
Having regard to the findings recorded by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on taking
into consideration all relevant facts and
circumstances as noted and discussed
above, the Committee proposes to impose
sanction on India Cements Ltd
(Franchisee) under Section 6,rule 4.2(c)
of the Operational Rules by suspending it
from the League for a period of two years.
The period of suspension shall commence
from the date of this order.
On Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited
Mr Raj Kundra was indeed part owner and also
team official and therefore for the purpose of
operational rules with reference to IPL matches
Mr Raj Kundra's actions that brought the game,
the BCCI and the IPL into disrepute have to be
considered actions of the franchise. We do not
think that Jaipur IPL can shirk its responsibility
by terming the acts done by Mr Raj Kundra as
having been done in his personal capacity. If
those who indulge in corrupt practices forbidden
by the rules of the game are an integral part of
the franchise in view of their accreditation, part
ownership, close relationship and also being
team official, the argument that these acts were
personal and as a consequence of them if the
image of the game, the BCCI and the league got
affected, the franchise cannot be held
responsible does not merit acceptance. Such a
technical approach is legally unsustainable
because of the very nature of relationship
between the franchise and the wrongdoer.
The general omissions by all franchises found in
the ACSU report deserve various attention by the
BCCI but in so far as Jaipur IPL is concerned its
omissions are grave in as much as its part owner
and team official have been found to have
indulged in betting and that has affected the
image of the game, the BCCI and the league and
brought each one of them into disrepute. Jaipur
IPL claims that it is highly celebrates as nursery
for players but the fact remains that three RR
players were arrested and charged with spot-
fixing in the 2013 IPL season. The committee can
also take notice of the fact that there has been
allegation of approach to one of its players for
corrupt practices in 2015 IPL season as well. This
shows that all is not well with Jaipur IPL in
handling anti-corruption issues. It is true that
Mr Raj Kundra has relinquished his shares
somewhere in the month of March but it is too
late. No urgent action was taken by Jaipur IPL
against Raj Kundra when his acts of betting
became known. Once it is accepted that cricket is
greater than individuals or a body of individuals
and financial loss may be caused to a few players
and franchises may not be a significant
consideration while taking disciplinary action or
for imposition of punishment for wrongdoing.
On consideration of all relevant aspects of

the matter, the Committee imposes
sanction on JIPL (Franchisee) under
Section 6, rule 4.2(c) of the Operational
Rules by suspending it from the League
for a period of two years. The period of
suspension shall commence from the date
of this order.

One down, more to follow
SUHRITH PARTHASARATHY
The Lodha panel's punitive measures will reassure those who

feared the guilty would get away, and offers hope for its next
task, of recommendations to restructure the BCCI
The Supreme Court's judgment, delivered on

January 22 this year, in cases emanating out of
the insidious dealings of the Indian Premier
League, was rightly lauded at the time. The court
had rendered a momentous verdict, with far-
reaching implications, in finding that the
activities of the BCCI were amenable to the
rigours of judicial review.
What's more, the court had also confirmed the

findings of a panel headed by Mukul Mudgal, a
former chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court, of wrongdoing by Gurunath
Meiyappan and Raj Kundra, individuals
inextricably linked with the IPL. But there
remained a feeling that complete justice had yet
to be achieved.
This was so because the court had deferred to an

independent committee the job of determining
punishments to not only Meiyappan and Kundra,
but also to India Cements Ltd (ICL) and Jaipur
IPL Cricket Limited (JICL), the respective
owners of Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan
Royals.
On Tuesday, this court-appointed committee,

headed by RM Lodha, a former chief justice of
India, rendered its verdict. Its findings have
joyously squashed any remaining feeling of
apprehension that the BCCI's unaccountability
would continue to go unpunished. The
committee not only awarded lifetime bans to
Meiyappan and Kundra from all involvement
with IPL cricket, but it also suspended ICL and
JICL from participation in the IPL for a period of
two years.
At the outset, the Committee clarified its specific

mandate, ousting any hope that the
transgressors might have had in re-arguing the
question of their guilt. In its order, the
committee made repeated references to a
number of paragraphs from the Supreme Court's
judgment, most notably paragraph 110. Here, the
court had observed that it was only the quantum
of punishment to be imposed on Meiyappan and
Kundra, and their "respective
franchisees/teams/owners of the teams," which
alone required determination by the committee.
This finding by the court, in the committee's

opinion, altogether barred Meiyappan and
Kundra from raising any fresh doubts with
respect to their involvement in activities of
betting. Equally, it also forbade ICL and JICL
from questioning the establishment of their own
respective contraventions.
"If the culpability of the two Franchisees," wrote

the committee, "were not found established by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not have
mandated the Committee to determine the
quantum of punishment to be imposed on them."
Therefore, its job, the committee held, was
restricted to awarding punishments to
Meiyappan, Kundra, ICL and JICL for their
individual and separate acts of wrongdoing.
Previously, the Mudgal panel had found - as was

also later affirmed by the Supreme Court - that
Meiyappan and Kundra, through their acts of
betting, had violated the IPL's Operational Rules,
the IPL's Anti-Corruption Code for Participants
and the IPL's Code of Conduct for Players and
Team Officials.
At the time of arguing the quantum of

punishment to be awarded, Meiyappan's
counsel, in seeking leniency from the Lodha
Committee for his client, contended that action
could now be taken only under the Anti-
Corruption Code. As it happened, under this
code, a person could be banned from
involvement in the game, at most, for a period of
five years. These arguments were, however,
dismissed by the Committee.
"The Supreme Court's analysis of the Operational

Rules, Code of Conduct and Anti Corruption
Code and the remarks while analyzing these
Rules and Codes," wrote the Committee, "leave
no manner of doubt that disciplinary action
against Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan is not confined
to the Anti Corruption Code alone." What's
more, the three documents, the committee
found, were not mutually exclusive. While the act
of betting is a specific offence under the Anti
Corruption Code, when, through such act, a
player or official brings the game into disrepute,
he equally violates the terms of the Operational
Rules as well as the Code of Conduct.
In Meiyappan's case, the committee found, there

were a number of factors that aggravated the
nature of his offences. These included the fact
that he was an integral part of CSK; that he was
in regular touch with bookies and punters; that
he frequently placed bets in IPL matches,
sometimes even while these matches were in
progress; that he had been found to be a "team
official," within the meaning given to the term
under the Operational Rules; and that he showed
no remorse for his actions. These circumstances,
in the committee's belief, necessitated a life-ban,
as permitted under both the Code of Conduct
and the Operational Rules.
Kundra's counsel also sought to make arguments

seeking to restrict any punishment to his client
to that mandated under the Anti-Corruption
Code alone. But the committee found that the
misconduct established against Kundra had been
three-fold: of betting, of adversely affecting the
image of the BCCI, the IPL and the game of
cricket, and of acting against the spirit of the
game, by bringing disrepute to it. Each of these
offences, the Committee ruled, were distinct, and
mandated imposition of separate sanctions. As a
result, Kundra too was accorded an effective life-
ban.
The counsel for ICL and JICL, for their parts,

made arguments seeking to distance their clients
from the transgressions committed by
Meiyappan and Kundra. The Committee,
however, held, much like it had in the
individuals' cases, that the Supreme Court had
already confirmed the respective guilt of ICL and
JICL. "The fact that the Committee has been
given authority by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to
determine the quantum of punishment against
the franchisee/teams/owners as well," wrote the
Committee, "is indicative of the position that
there is a finding of wrongdoing recorded against
the franchisees."
In the case of ICL, the Committee ruled that the

company was vicariously responsible for
Meiyappan's actions. "Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan
was in the position of owner," the Committee
wrote. "He is the son-in-law of Mr. N Srinivasan,
Managing Director of ICL, which is the
Franchisee of the team CSK."
As far as JICL was concerned, its omission in

checking Kundra's wrongdoings, in the
Committee's words, "are grave in as much as its
part owner and Team Official has been found to
have indulged in betting and that has affected
the image of the game (and the BCCI and the
League) and brought each one of them to
disrepute." Accordingly, under the terms of the
IPL's Operational Rules, both ICL and JICL, as
franchisees, have been suspended from the IPL
for a period of two years.
It's worthwhile to note that ICL had, in fact,

already transferred its rights over the CSK
franchise to a subsidiary, Chennai Super Kings
Cricket Ltd, in February this year. Although
there is no specific clarification on the validity of
this transfer in the Committee's order,
presumably the order of suspension would also
apply to the new subsidiary.
It is plausible to argue that these orders of

suspension would nonetheless permit CSK and
RR to continue to participate in the IPL, if ICL
and JICL divest their ownership in their
respective franchises. But, the committee also
appears to suggest that the orders of suspension
imposed on ICL and JICL are in their capacity
as franchisees and not owners. This would
mean that even a transfer of ownership in the
franchises might be insufficient to pave the way
for CSK and RR to participate in the IPL over the
next two years. To sum up, the order doesn't say
anything explicit on this issue. It leaves us to
interpret what would happen in the event of a
transfer of ownership, and an argument can be
made that even a transfer of ownership would
not allow CSK and RR to participate for the next
two years.
ICL has already expressed its intentions to
appeal the Committee's verdict to the Supreme
Court. The grounds available to it, though,
appear to be rather scarce. The Supreme Court's
judgment, no doubt, permits parties aggrieved by
the findings of the Committee to seek recourse to
"appropriate judicial proceedings in accordance
with law." But, equally, the judgment also makes
it clear that the Committee's order would be final
and binding.
This observation greatly reduces the options

available to the prospective appellants - given
that they were ostensibly accorded a fair hearing,
and given that there appears to be no obvious
error in the committee's findings, it is unlikely
that the Supreme Court will now modify the
sanctions awarded.
The Supreme Court's original intervention in

these matters was no doubt meant as a special
measure prompted by what the court viewed as
extraordinary circumstances. In the absence of
the court's involvement, it's difficult to imagine
the transgressors facing any real punishment,
given the nature of their relationship with the
BCCI and the positions of power that they enjoy.
This verdict rendered by Justice Lodha's
committee ought not to take attention away from
the real issue: the BCCI remains a private body,
generally unaccountable to the public.
It is possible that the Supreme Court's judgment,

read together with the committee's verdict,
might usher an era of better governance within
the BCCI. But to bring forth substantial change
in the culture of cricket administration in India,
the BCCI's structure would require wholesale
reorganisation. To this end, the Lodha
Committee's mandate remains unfinished.
The committee has also been requested by the

Supreme Court to "examine and make suitable
recommendations to the BCCI for such reforms
in its practices and procedures and such
amendments in the Memorandum of
Association, Rules and Regulations as may be
considered necessary and proper." If the present
verdict is anything to go by, those
recommendations, when they arrive, will
resonate even deeper.
Suhrith Parthasarathy is a lawyer and writer from Chennai, India
Indian cricket July 15,

2015
Cricket's sanctity restored

The Indian media reacts to the Lodha Committee judgment,
suspending the owners of Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan
Royals
2shares
Welcoming the suspension of the owners of

Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals, The
Indian Express calls the Lodha Committee
judgment "a moment of closure that could help
reinstate cricket's credibility".
By basing the quantum of punishment solely on the codes and rules of the BCCI, the Lodha
panel has held up a mirror to cricket. The tight group that has historically rallied around its
own has been told that rules shouldn't just be followed in letter, but in spirit, too. This is a
reminder that checks and balances do exist, but motivated overwriting or selective
punishment can defeat the most complete constitution. The BCCI has got a public shouting
for ignoring cricket's inner voice.
The Hindu says the punishment handed out by

the committee "ought to be welcomed by cricket
fans and all those who cherish the game's
purity", and holds that concerns about players
having to bear part of the punishment for team
owners' misdeeds are misplaced.
Punishing teams for misconduct is nothing new in international sport. The scandal that
rocked Italian football in 2006 led to even a top team, Juventus, being relegated and stripped
of two titles. Mr. Lodha has made it clear that the spirit of cricket is larger than any
individuals or franchises, or financial losses. In any case, the BCCI has the option to hold a
fresh auction for the Chennai and Jaipur franchises, or let the affected players be bought by
other teams.
Writing in The Economic Times, Anand Vasu

says the IPL's future could hinge on whether the
Royals sell their franchise stakes or choose to
hold on to them.
It is pertinent, however, to note that no mention is made of either Chennai Super Kings
(CSK) or Rajasthan Royals (RR) in the 14,770-word final opinion that the Lodha panel
provides. It's safe to assume, then, that the teams might still continue to exist, if the existing
owners find suitable buyers and want to offload their assets as they can no longer reasonably
operate them.
It would also not be far-fetched to suggest that this is in the best interest of not
merely the league itself, but also the other six franchises currently running teams.
Both CSK and RR were not merely crowd favourites, but they were, ironically, among
the more professionally administered outfits.
Should the respective owners not want to sell brands that have been built with
considerable investment of time, money and effort over eight years, the impact on
the league could be huge. Certainly, the BCCI could look for two new teams, come
IPL 2016. But there is no guarantee that they would attract similarly attractive bids,
given the hammering the league has taken in the court of public opinion in the recent
past.
In the Times of India, Ayaz Memon writes that

the biggest import of the Lodha report is that the
shield BCCI has always used to cover itself with,
that it is a private society which owes allegiance
only to itself, has been busted.
That cricket belongs to fans is the unequivocal message of this report. BCCI's job is only to
manage the sport. With efficiency, transparency and probity.
In Hindustan Times, Pradeep Magazine says
that the real mission of the Lodha panel will be
completed only when it comes out with a detailed
blue-print of the administrative reforms the
BCCI needs to undertake.
The Indian Board's constitution is a relic from an amateurish past with 'might is right and
what is good for us the officials is good for the game' being their unsaid preamble and the
governing principal.
The conflict of interest, the root cause of the present ailment which has in its grip not
just the administrators but the players as well as their agents, needs to be rooted out
of the system.
In the Wire, Sharda Ugra writes that until

Tuesday afternoon, a cynicism had prevailed that
a gentle slap on the wrist is what would bring the
IPL corruption case to its closure. The Lodha
panel instead landed a punch right into the solar
plexus of everyone involved and everyone
watching.
In reality, they did what they had done as judges every day of their professional lives: looked
at one set of facts alongside its relevant set of rules and passed sentence. The individuals
involved, the consequences of the sentence on the individuals are never factors arriving at a
sentence, which at its best, must be an act of simplicity and clarity. As the lawyers say it:
these are the facts and this is the law.
Corruption in the IPL July 17,

2015
Sponsors cautious as BCCI looks

to restore faith in IPL
AMOL KARHADKAR AND ARUN VENUGOPAL
Rajeev Shukla, IPL chairman, has stated that the IPL will be played
with eight teams, but sponsors and commercial partners are
cautious of the league in the aftermath of the Lodha panel verdict
A few days after the Lodha panel's verdict in the

IPL 2013 corruption scandal - in which the
panelsuspended the owners of the Chenai
Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals franchises for
two years - sponsors and commercial partners of
the tournament are waiting to see the steps the
BCCI will take as it attempts to restore
confidence in the IPL brand. There is little doubt,
among industry experts, brand managers and a
few BCCI members, that the IPL has been
affected adversely after one of the biggest crises
since its inception in 2008.
"If I were to put a number around the reputation

loss, if 100% is pure reputation, it [the current
reputation of the IPL] is around 60%. There is a
40% loss of reputation owing to all the
controversies," Anisha Motwani, director at Max
Life Insurance and an expert on brand
reputation management, said.
The tournament has also been hit in terms of

financial valuation. "I would say it has taken a
beating of 10 basis points [10%]," R
Ramakrishnan, director and co-founder,
Baseline, a sports marketing, entertainment and
licensing firm, said. "The IPL is still in its infancy
compared to other global leagues. The brand is
still growing and learning. As long as there is
match-winning on-field performance and a loyal
fan base, the valuation will have a steady rise. We
are still eight months away from the next IPL."
A dip of 10 basis points for a league that is valued
between $3-4 billion by various finance firms is a
setback, and it will only drop if the market
sentiment continues to drive sponsors and
prospective bidders away from the league.
Over the last three days, PepsiCo India, the title

sponsor of IPL, has been reportedly considering
not to renew its deal after the 2017 edition. Aircel
and Ultratech Cements, the main sponsors of the
two suspended franchises, are reconsidering
their association with the IPL. The JSW Group,
which was interested in buying an IPL
franchise until last week, has decided against it
due to the "negative aura" surrounding the
league.
"I think it's a 'No' at this point of time, purely

based on the whole negative aura that has been
generated," Parth Jindal, who oversees JSW's
sports interests, said. "We don't want our brand
to be associated with a league that is so tainted at
the moment."
Executives from various companies that are

sponsors of the IPL say they have taken a "wait
and watch" approach, but admit their
managements might reconsider the association
with the IPL given the "negative publicity".
Even some of the BCCI officials admit this is the

biggest crisis for the tournament. "The brand of
the IPL has definitely been affected. Some of the
sponsors are reportedly drifting away from the
IPL. It will be a more than challenging task for
everyone in the BCCI to restore the faith of the
market in the brand," Ajay Shirke, an IPL
governing council member, said.
However, IPL chairman Rajiv Shukla is still

upbeat over the future of the league. "We are
always concerned about the IPL, and let me
assure you the next edition will be a bigger
success. The IPL is a robust product and this
judgement [suspension of teams] should not
affect IPL as a product," says Shukla. "The idea is
to have the tournament in full format with a
minimum of eight teams. We can't hold the event
with six teams."
Shukla's confidence is based on the tremendous

response for IPL 2015. The tournament has been
embroiled in controversy since the arrests of
players and team officials in May 2013, but the
eighth edition saw a surge in advertising revenue
and viewership figures. While television ratings
rose considerably, MSM India Pvt Ltd, the
official broadcaster of the tournament,
reportedly generated in excess of Rs 1000 crore
[approx. $165 million] from advertising revenue.
"When you look at last year's [IPL 2015]

statistics, IPL as a sport is an established
property," Motwani said. "Despite all the
controversy around the BCCI, the IPL ratings
grew from 3.1 to 3.7 TV hours. The [ad] rates
went up by 20%. The viewership time per match
went up by around 45-46 minutes, which was
significantly higher."
Shukla's clarification that the BCCI is not looking

at a six-team IPL, will have come as a relief for
MSM India. A six-team IPL is not a viable option
since MSM India has paid more than $800
million for a nine-year broadcast deal running
till 2017 with a minimum of 60 matches per
season.
Even if broadcast fees were lowered with a six-

team IPL, MSM India will take a huge hit in
terms of revenue. "The broadcaster will be in a
tight spot if the IPL takes place with six teams.
Then there is certainly a revenue loss,"
Ramakrishnan said.
Motwani explained the "broad math". "Each 10

second-slot is priced at Rs 5 lakh [approx
$830,000] approximately. I am taking some
ballpark figures here," she said. "There are 15
matches less, which means there are roughly
35,000 seconds of advertising inventory left and
if 35,000 seconds of inventory costs around Rs 5
lakh per 10 seconds, it comes to roughly Rs 180-
200 crore [approx $30-33 million], a straight hit
for the channel."
A media planner who has been associated with

MSM India earlier said the broadcaster is not
"overtly worried" after the BCCI made it clear it
will not reduce the number of teams. But for the
broadcaster and the rest of the market to be
convinced about, the BCCI needs to initiate
procedures to add two new teams at the earliest.
That is unlikely to be easy, and deciding the base

price for two new franchises will be one of the
toughest tasks. IPL insiders and industry experts
alike are convinced that no investor will come
forward if the BCCI invites bids for a two-year
period, the suspension period for the owners of
Super Kings and Royals.
"Ideally it has to be a ten-year cycle offered to the

new investor, if not five-year period. It needs at
least five years for a franchise to break even,"
says a former executive of an IPL franchise. "If
the base price exceeds Rs 500 crore [Approx $83
million] for a ten-year window, I don't see too
many interested buyers coming forward to invest
in the IPL at this point of time."
At the inception of the IPL, Royals was the

cheapest franchise at $6.7 million per year for 10
years while Mumbai Indians was the most
expensive at $11.119 million per year. In 2011,
when two franchises were added to the IPL
bandwagon, Sahara India paid a whopping Rs
170 crore [$38.63 millon at then exchange rate]
per year. In 2012, the Sun Group acquired the
Hyderabad franchise at approximately $15.9
million, per year for five years.
However, industry experts feel the new bids, if

invited, would be far cheaper than the Sun
Group's bid for Sunrisers Hyderabad, although
there are companies like the RPG Group and
Videocon, interested in acquiring an IPL team.
Motwani, however, feels prospective buyers will

want to wait until the uncertainty over the
format has been cleared. "I have a feeling they
would want to wait for the controversy to be at
least cleared," she said. "What are they buying
into? They could just be buying a hot potato.
"Even if it comes free, if it ends up burning you
all the way, nobody wants a hot potato. Whatever
little you save will just be completely ruined by
the fact that it will cause a bigger hole in
reputation and many other things."

Arun Venugopal is a senior sub-editor at ESPNcricinfo

2015
IPL verdict 'disappointing for

players' - Dravid
Rahul Dravid, Rajasthan Royals' team mentor,
has said he respects the Justice Lodha Panel's
decision to suspend Royals and Chennai Super
Kings' owners for two years, but felt the court's
decision was a massive blow to the prospects of
the younger players in the two teams.
Dravid, who is currently the coach of the India A

team, was speaking at a press conference in
Chennai ahead of India A's four-day match
against South Africa A. While he refused to get
drawn into the specifics of Lodha's verdict,
Dravid said the entire episode would affect
"everyone involved with Indian cricket".
"I don't want to make firm judgments on people,

but it's disappointing that the actions of one or
two can have an impact on so many," Dravid
said. "Not only me, but generally in a situation
like this, the people at the bottom of the pyramid
are the ones who are most affected.
"The top players and coaches always find stuff to
do afterwards. It's not difficult for top players to
be picked by other franchises. However, the
young players who don't easily get an
opportunity, they miss out. I feel disappointed
for them, but we respect the decision the court
has taken. In my opinion, not everyone at
Rajasthan Royals or Chennai Super Kings are
bad. There are lots of very, very good people."
When asked if his association with Royals would

forever be a blot on his career, Dravid
diplomatically insisted it was "for the people to
decide", but said had he been aware of any
wrongdoing in the team, he would have "dealt
with it".
"At the end of the day, I see my role as a mentor

and as a coach of a team. People need to decide if
the actions of shareholders or owners can be
linked to coaches or mentors. I don't want to try
and defend myself. I only wish I had known that
the three players were doing something
suspicious, as I would have dealt with it," he
said.
"People know what spot-fixing is. It's difficult to

know, even if in same team, if people are
involved in spot-fixing. If I were to doubt every
single wide or four, I would lose all my love and
interest in the game. Any team I coach, I don't go
into it suspecting people everytime they get hit
for a four. I had absolutely no clue, and I've
spoken to the Mudgal commission about that.
What people do in their private lives, I personally
feel it's difficult for mentors and coaches to know
what decisions they are making."

2015
BCCI meeting to discuss

franchise situation after Lodha
verdict
AMOL KARHADKAR
With the Lodha panel suspending the franchise

Royals for two years, the BCCI has convened an
IPL governing council meeting in Mumbai on
Sunday. On the agenda will be an analysis of the
ramifications of the judgement and the options
available to the board as they look to ensure an
eight-team IPL in 2016.
Why has the IPL governing council

meeting been convened?
The IPL governing council meeting is the first
official BCCI gathering after the Supreme Court-
appointed Justice RM Lodha
committee suspended the owners of two IPL
franchises - Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super
Kings - for two years earlier in the week. The
meeting was convened within hours of the Lodha
committee pronouncing its verdict.
What will be on the BCCI's agenda during

Sunday's meeting?
It is unlikely the BCCI will take a final decision
on its future course of action, as it is still unsure
whether the two suspended franchises will
appeal legally against the Lodha committee's
verdict. At the outset, BCCI's legal advisor Usha
Nath Banerjee is set to explain the implications
of the 59-page order, and the board's counsel is
likely to present possible options before the
committee with the aim of ensuring smooth
organization of forthcoming IPL editions.
Considering the complexity of the issue, the
governing council may appoint a special
committee under the leadership of either Ajay
Shirke, governing council member, or former
BCCI president Shashank Manohar, and
authorise it to decide the future course of action
in consultation with the BCCI president and
secretary.
With IPL chairman Rajiv Shukla
confirming that IPL 2016 will be held with
a minimum of eight teams, what does the
governing council do now?
Following the legal briefing, the governing
council will discuss the possible options to deal
with the situation. These include inviting bids for
two new teams for two years, inviting bids for
two new teams for a longer duration or the BCCI
running two teams for two years.
The last option is Shukla's suggestion but BCCI
members feel it is impractical. Manohar has also
opposed the idea of the BCCI adopting the
teams. "If you ask me my personal opinion, the
BCCI cannot adopt the teams because the rules
and regulations of the Board do not permit it to
do so," Manohar said in Kolkata after discussing
the issue with BCCI president Jagmohan
Dalmiya. "Moreover, will a BCCI official sit at the
player auction and bid for players? It will again
be a conflict of interest and the public perception
on this issue is really bad. Then you will bring
back the two teams on a platter, I don't think it
can be done."
Is terminating the franchise agreements
of owners of the Chennai Super Kings and
Rajasthan Royals likely to be discussed?
Various legal luminaries and some of the BCCI
officials feel the board's best option is to
terminate franchise agreements with both the
teams for having brought "material adverse
effect" to the BCCI - under clause 11.3 (c) of the
BCCI-IPL franchise agreement - and then float
new tenders for two franchises.
According to a governing council member, the
issue will surely be raised during Sunday's
meeting. But in all likelihood, the special sub-
committee will decide the future course of action,
based on the franchisees' reaction to suspension.
How is the BCCI planning to
accommodate the players of the previous
teams?
Since 2014, the IPL player agreements are
annual contracts, with the franchise having the
right to extend it for another year. This means
that both suspended franchises technically have
a right to hold on to a player if they wish to.
While an IPL governing council member
confided he may raise the query, a BCCI insider
stated the board isn't concerned about it since
"no team would want to deprive players'
opportunities".
Who is on the IPL governing council?
Apart from Shukla, who chairs the council, the
13-member committee includes BCCI secretary
Anurag Thakur as convenor, former treasurer
Shirke [Maharashtra], Kapil Malhotra [CCI],
Subir Ganguly [Bengal] Sourav Dasgupta
[Tripura], Bikash Baruah [Assam], Dr PV Shetty
[Mumbai], PR Ashok Anand [Karnataka], TN
Ananthanarayana [Kerala], Jyotiraditya Scindia
[Madhya Pradesh] and former India captains
Ravi Shastri and Sourav Ganguly. All other BCCI
office-bearers are also ex-officio members of the
governing council.
Shastri and Shirke, who are in England for
professional commitments, are like to join the
meeting via videoconferencing. Since Jharkhand
State Cricket Association's AGM is to be held on
Sunday, BCCI joint secretary Amitabh
Chaudhary is also unlikely to attend the meeting
in person.

2015
BCCI forms working group to

study Lodha verdict
AMOL KARHADKAR
The BCCI has formed a working group to study

the Lodha panel's verdict relating to the IPL
2013 corruption scandal and instructed it to
present its findings in six weeks. The group
comprises* IPL chairman Rajiv Shukla, BCCI
secretary Anurag Thakur, BCCI treasurer
Anirudh Chaudhry and IPL governing council
member Sourav Ganguly, and will be assisted by
Ushanath Banerjee, the board's legal counsel.
The board's response came after an IPL

governing council meeting in Mumbai on
Sunday, following the Lodha committeedecision
to suspend the owners of the Chennai Super
Kings and Rajasthan Royals franchises earlier
this week.
The BCCI press release after the meeting stated

the working group would "study this verdict, in
consultation with all our key advisors and
explore all the possible measures to be adopted,
with an objective to protect the interests of all
the stakeholders involved."
The release further stated: "This group will work

within a time bound period of six weeks and
report their recommendations to the IPL GC,
which will deliberate and share their views with
the working committee of the BCCI, for further
action."
The general tone of the meeting was to explore

the process of inviting bids for two new
franchises and the possibility of a 10-team IPL
after two years.
It is understood that most of the governing

council members who spoke during the hour-
long meeting were of the opinion that the BCCI
should start the procedure of inviting tenders for
the new teams for a longer duration to ensure
that the IPL's eight-team format is maintained
over the next two years.
The committee was also briefed about a

suggestion from former BCCI treasurer and joint
secretary MP Pandove, over the addition of two
teams and the likelihood of a ten-team IPL from
2018. Pandove confirmed to ESPNcricinfo he
had "made such a suggestion to the secretary
[Thakur] since I think that's the most viable
option for now".
Some members also cited the examples of the

2011 and 2012 IPL seasons - which were played
with ten and nine teams respectively - and said if
the two teams do return to the fold after serving
the two-year suspension, the IPL could be played
with ten teams.
Sundar Raman, the IPL's chief operating officer,

reportedly said a ten-team IPL could be a
logistical nightmare, but a former BCCI office
bearer responded by saying Raman should not
term the idea unworkable as he was an integral
part of IPL's earlier expansion.
It is understood that the issue of the termination

of the suspended teams' franchise agreements
was discussed, but no direct demand was made.
The council was assured that the five-member
working group will consider all options.
Shukla's suggestion of the BCCI independently

running the two suspended franchises for two
years was presented to the committee and was
backed by a current office bearer who proposed
that leading financial solutions firms could be
involved in running the teams on the board's
behalf.
A former cricketer on the governing council -

who had urged the BCCI not to leave the players
who contributed to the IPL brand in a lurch -
reportedly said that individuals like Rahul
Dravid [Rajasthan Royals mentor] and MS
Dhoni [captain, Chennai Super Kings] are
capable of running teams, if required, without an
outsider's assistance.
The former office bearer then said Dhoni - whose

comments about Gurunath Meiyappan to the
Mudgal probe panel came under scrutiny -
cannot be entrusted with such a responsibility.
Thakur is then understood to have informed the
house that the legal experts have advised that the
board's involvement in running two teams is not
feasible.
Thakur is also believed to have hinted at strict

action against all the guilty entities.
July 20, 3.00pm *This piece was amended to

reflect the BCCI's announcement of the Working
Group's composition
Lodha committee seeks five

months to complete report
The RM Lodha committee has sought an
additional five months to complete the second
part of the task assigned to it by the Supreme
Court that deals with recommending changes to
the BCCI's constitution and manner of
functioning. The committee submitted an
application in the Supreme Court on Monday
stating that a further five months may be given to
complete the rest of the work. It is likely to be
listed before the court next week.
The Lodha committee was primarily tasked with

determining the quantum of punishment for
Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj Kundra and their
respective franchises. Last week the
committeedelivered its judgement by
banning Meiyappan and Kundra for life and
suspending the owners of Chennai Super Kings
and Rajasthan Royals for two years.
But while delivering its seminal and wide-

ranging order on corruption in the IPL earlier
this year, the Supreme Court had also asked the
three-man independent panel - comprising
Lodha, a former Chief Justice of India, along
with retired Supreme Court judges Ashok Bhan
and RV Raveendran - to "examine and make
suitable recommendations to the BCCI for such
reforms in its practices and procedures and such
considered necessary and proper."
The court wanted the committee to suggest

amendments to the processes followed by the
BCCI "with a view to preventing sporting frauds,
conflict of interests, streamlining the working of
BCCI to make it more responsive to the
expectations of the public at large."
The committee initiated that process in April

when it sent an exhaustive, pointed and
incisive 82-point questionnaire to various
high-ranked BCCI officials, both past and
present. The questions were split into eight
sections, including an understanding of how the
BCCI and its stakeholders function, the basis and
formation of the board's various committees, the
election process, players' welfare, conflict of
interest and transparency in the IPL.
Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo
Corruption in the IPL August 3, 2015
CAB wants sealed envelope

handed to Lodha panel
The Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) has
petitioned the Supreme Court of India to hand
over the final report of the Justice Mudgal
committee on corruption in IPL 2013, along with
the sealed envelope related to the investigation,
to the Justice Lodha panel that is currently
entrusted with the case.
The sealed envelope referred to by the CAB was

the one handed over to the Supreme Court by
the Mudgal committee in February 2014, which
contained the names of 13 individuals and
allegations of sporting fraud against them. Four
of those individuals, including former BCCI
president N Srinivasan, have been named by the
court; the envelope was to be opened and its
contents read by only the judges who had
ordered the independent Mudgal probe. The
panel had stated that the information was
sensitive and it would not be "proper to cast
aspersions on the persons named unless
investigations are conducted".
The Mudgal committee was asked by the court in

May 2014 to continue his probe into the 13
individuals named in the envelope, and was
given greater investigative powers. Its final
reportwas submitted in November 2014.
The CAB wants the court to hand over the

contents of the sealed envelope and the full
Mudgal report to the Lodha panel, which is
currently in the process of drawing up its
recommendations for restructuring the BCCI.
The Mudgal report had found Srinivasan not

guilty of either betting or fixing, or of having
tried to prevent the investigation into the IPL
2013 scandal. However, the report stated that
Srinivasan, along with four other BCCI officials,
knew about an IPL player violating the code of
conduct but took no action. Srinivasan was one
of four key individuals related to Indian cricket -
along with former Chennai Super Kings team
official Gurunath Meiyappan, former Rajasthan
Royals co-owner Raj Kundra and IPL chief
operating officer Sundar Raman - to be
mentioned in the report for misdemeanours. The
Mudgal panel found both Gurunath and Kundra
guilty of indulging in betting.
The Lodha panel, which was formed to decide

the quantum of punishment for Gurunath,
Kundra and their respective franchises,
had announced its verdict last month. While
Gurunath and Kundra were banned for life from
having any involvement with cricket or the BCCI,
the owners of the Super Kings and Royals
franchises - India Cements and Jaipur IPL Pvt
Ltd - were suspended for two years.
The petition by the CAB, led by its secretary

Aditya Verma, is the latest in the organisation's
tussle against the BCCI. The CAB has repeatedly
challenged the BCCI's handling of the IPL 2013
corruption scandal in court. Its opposition began
with a Public Interest Litigation filed in the
Bombay High Court over conflict of interest
issues, after an independent two-member probe
panel constituted by the BCCI found no evidence
of wrongdoing by Gurunath - Srinivasan's son-
in-law - or Kundra with relation to the IPL 2013
corruption saga. The Bombay High Court found
the BCCI's probe panel to be "illegally"
constituted, but did not constitute a fresh panel.
The CAB and the BCCI subsequently both

challenged the court's order in the Supreme
Court of India. The country's apex court
appointed a three-member committee headed by
Justice Mudgal, and comprising additional
solicitor general L Nageswara Rao and Nilay
Dutta, to conduct an independent inquiry into
the allegations of corruption against Gurunath,
Kundra, India Cements and Jaipur IPL Cricket
Private Ltd. The Mudgal committee also had the
larger mandate of looking into allegations
around betting and spot-fixing in IPL matches,
and the involvement of players.
India news August 4, 2015
CSK, Royals representatives not

invited for BCCI meeting
Management representatives of the Chennai
Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals franchises
have not been invited for the first round of
discussions with the BCCI's working group that
is in charge of studying the Lodha panel order
relating to the IPL 2013 corruption case. The
owners of the franchises - India Cements and
Jaipur IPL Pvt Ltd - had been suspended for
two years by the panel in its verdict announced
last month.
With the participation of the teams in doubt, the

BCCI formed a working group on July 20 -
comprising IPL chairman Rajiv Shukla, BCCI
secretary Anurag Thakur, BCCI treasurer
Anirudh Chaudhry and IPL governing council
member Sourav Ganguly - to study the panel's
order and present its findings in six weeks.
ESPNcricinfo understands that the group will

have one-on-one discussions with the IPL's
stakeholders, including broadcasters, sponsors
and the remaining six franchises over the week.
The suspended franchises were not surprised
with the development but hoped the BCCI would
communicate its next course of action to them at
the earliest.
Shukla, meanwhile, said the group would speak

to sponsors to ensure that next year's edition was
a success.
"We have started meeting all the stakeholders.

Today the representatives of Yes Bank came and
met the members of the working group," Shukla
told reporters in Delhi on Monday. "Yes Bank is
one of our sponsors. Similarly we will meet other
sponsors and also speak to them about how to
make IPL 9 a success."
While Shukla stressed that sponsors were

"bullish", an IPL insider admitted that
companies and brands are wary of their
association with the IPL, due to the negative
publicity surrounding the league in the aftermath
of the corruption scandal. Sponsors seem to have
indicated that the board will have to renegotiate
the terms even if IPL remains an eight-team
affair.
The Lodha committee's order left two companies

with teams that cannot play in the league and the
onus is now on the BCCI to work out a way
forward, to decide whether the suspended teams
will be in limbo for two years or play under
different ownership. The group will also have to
look at ways to ensure that the next two editions
of the IPL will feature eight teams and players
from the suspended franchises.
Corruption in the IPLAugust 7, 2015
Court dismisses CAB petition on

sealed envelope
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the

Cricket Association of Bihar's
(CAB) petition that asked for the court to hand
over the final Mudgal report on corruption in IPL
2013, along with the sealed envelope containing
thirteen names related to the investigation, to
the Justice Lodha probe committee that is
currently entrusted with the case.
The two-judge bench of Justices TS Thakur and

FMI Kalifulla also allowed the Lodha panel an
extension till December 31 to suggest reforms to
the functioning of the BCCI, a task handed to the
panel by the court.
The sealed envelope referred to by the CAB

was the one handed over to the Supreme Court
by the Mudgal committee in February 2014,
which contained the names of 13 individuals and
allegations of sporting fraud against them. Four
of those individuals, including former BCCI
president N Srinivasan, had been named by the
court and the Mudgal committee was asked
tocontinue its probe into the 13 individuals and
was given greater investigative powers. Its final
report was submitted in November 2014.
When Nalini Chidambaram, the CAB's legal
counsel, opened her arguments, Justice Thakur
questioned why her client was keen on handing
over the Mudgal committee report and the sealed
envelope to the Lodha panel - why could the
Lodha panel not seek, if it wanted, the same? "If
the Committee wants to look into it without
affecting the image and reputation of some
persons, it can consider it," Justice Thakur said.
"So long as no request comes from Justice Lodha
Committee on record, there is no need of passing
any order."
It is understood that the Lodha panel has not

found it necessary to ask the court for the same
as the entire investigative material of the Mudgal
probe committee is available to them. All the
three reports prepared by the Mudgal committee
were made available to BB Mishra, the
investigative officer who had been appointed to
probe the allegations against IPL chief operating
officer Sundar Raman, one of the four names
disclosed by the court along with former BCCI
president N Srinivasan and the now banned pair
of franchise owners - Gurunath Meiyappan and
Raj Kundra.
According to a BCCI official if the Lodha panel

wanted, it could "requisition" the material from
Vivek Priyardashni, the investigative officer who
has replaced the now-retired Mishra. More
importantly, the official pointed out, it was not
part of the Lodha panel's mandate to probe the
names mentioned in the envelope. "It is a
question of merely whether it is germane or not
germane with reference to administrative
reforms [which the Lodha panel has been tasked
with recommending]. There is no task put to the
Lodha committee to further investigate or punish
any of the people in the sealed envelope," the
official said.
Asked why the CAB found it necessary to file the

plea, Chidambaram said her client feared all the
hard work of the Mudgal probe committee could
be laid to waste otherwise. "The Mudgal
committee took the pains of investigating the
corruption scandal and gave a sealed cover
naming 13 persons, adding further investigations
needed to be done [against those named]. A
detailed investigation followed and a third report
was submitted. But only excerpts from the third
report were given to us. So we said all the time
and effort of the committee has gone to waste."
Hence, Chidambaram said, the CAB wanted the

third report of the Mudgal committee along with
the sealed envelope be made available to the
Lodha panel. It could only help them in their
current exercise of suggesting BCCI reforms, the
counsel said.
"This is necessary since the Justice Lodha

Committee has to have the benefit of the full text
of the Justice Mudgal Committee report to
appreciate the extent of the malaise which has
set in in the game of cricket, so that while
suggesting the administrative reforms for BCCI it
can suggest measures to ensure that in future the
reputation of the game of cricket will not be
sullied by any scam.
"If the full text of the third report is not given to
the Justice Lodha Committee, the time and effort
spent by Justice Mudgal Committee and the
investigating team and the heavy expenditure
incurred by the respective governments will go
totally to waste," the CAB had noted in its plea,
which was filed earlier this week.
Corruption in the IPL August 20, 2015
CSK file writ petition against

Lodha order
ARUN VENUGOPAL
Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited, the

owners of the team which has
been suspended for two years in the IPL, has
filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court
asking for the Lodha Committee order to be set
aside in so far as it relates to Super Kings. The
court subsequently asked both respondents - the
BCCI and India Cements - to file a response by
August 27.
A Super Kings insider confirmed the

development, terming the writ as a "substantive
challenge to the punishment."
The case is being argued by Dushyant Dave, a

senior Delhi-based advocate, who has hitherto
not appeared in cases relating to the franchise,
has been engaged to pursue the matter. The
source also clarified that the affidavit, running to
36 pages, was different from an appeal. Legal
experts say that while an interim relief is unlikely
at this stage, a notice may be ordered on the
BCCI, listed as first respondent, seeking its
response.
After lying low for more than a month since

being suspended by the RM Lodha Committee,
Super Kings have made their first move. While
sources from Super Kings had all the while
suggested their appeal would be contingent to
the BCCI working group's report, the affidavit
seems to have taken even those close to the
franchise by surprise.
Meanwhile, the BCCI working group, studying

the Lodha panel verdict, is aware of the Super
Kings writ, but a board official said it would not
put spanner in their works. He said the working
group would not await the court's decision and
instead go ahead with its decision which would
be revealed to the BCCI working committee on
August 28.
The writ, a copy of which is in the possession of

ESPNcricinfo, alleges the Lodha Committee
order went against the "fundamental principles
of natural justice and fair hearing", and had "led
to grave miscarriage of justice."
"The Justice Lodha Committee had failed to note

that the very reason for appointing a high level
committee comprising of former judges of apex
court was that they could look into the findings
of the Mudgal committee," Chennai Super Kings
Cricket Limited, the petitioner, stated in the
affidavit.
"The Supreme Court had categorically held they

were not sitting in appeal over the findings of the
Mudgal committee nor were they inclined to look
into the materials which were placed before the
said committee. The Justice Lodha committee
always had the authority to call for the material
forming the basis of the justice Mudgal
committee reports as observed by the apex court
in its recent order dated 7.8.2015.
"Having held that the offence under Article 4.1.1

of the Anti Corruption code was extremely grave,
at least the degree of culpability of the franchise
ought to have been considered by the
Committee."
With inputs from Amol Karhadkar and Nagraj

Gollapudi
Arun Venugopal is a senior sub-editor at ESPNcricinfo
India news November 3, 2015
IPL's Sundar Raman quits ahead

of Lodha hearing
Sundar Raman, the IPL's chief operating officer,
has resigned from his position. Raman had been
associated with the IPL since its inception; he
had been the right-hand man of Lalit Modi and,
after his removal in 2010, worked closely with N
Srinivasan.
Raman - whose resignation was confirmed by
IPL chairman Rajiv Shukla - put in his papers
during a meeting with BCCI president Shashank
Manohar in Nagpur on Monday. He is under
investigation for his alleged role in the 2013 IPL
corruption scandal, and is scheduled to appear
before the Lodha Committee on November 15.
It is understood that Manohar had told Raman

that he would need to resign on his own, or face
the possibility of being asked to resign at the
BCCI's annual general meeting on November 9.
"I have been serving my notice period for some

time now. I will be available to them [BCCI and
IPL whenever they require, but I will demit office
this week," Raman told the Hindu. They [BCCI]
wanted to stabilise things, and this has been
going on for four to five weeks. The BCCI
president [Shashank Manohar] is not well and so
I went to Nagpur yesterday to get his signature
on tenders and other documents."
Raman's future in the IPL was always in question

once Manohar was elected as the BCCI president
on October 4. Manohar had been one of the very
few BCCI administrators, past or present, to
publicly protest against Raman continuing as a
BCCI employee once the Mudgal Committee,
investigating the 2013 IPL scandal, had named
him in its report in connection with
"misdemeanours".
"Raman should have gone immediately after the

Mudgal Committee report found him prima facie
guilty of wrongdoings," Manohar had said in
July. "He ought to have stepped down
immediately at that time. Now, to restore the
faith of people in IPL and the game, Raman
needs to go."
But the previous BCCI administration, run

remotely by Srinivasan, supported Raman when
a release said: "Mr. Sundar Raman gave his
explanation relating to his role with reference to
the conclusions relating to him in the report of
the Mudgal committee. The members heard his
explanation and decided that the Board should
support Mr Sundar Raman to represent himself
before the Supreme Court."
Raman was named as Individual 12 in the

Mudgal report, which said he "knew a contact of
a bookie and had contacted him eight times in
one season". When questioned by the Mudgal
panel, Raman "admitted" that he "knew" a
contact of the bookie, but claimed to be
"unaware of his connection with betting
activities". The report stated Raman "also
accepted" that he had received information about
"individual 1 and individual 11 [that is, Gurunath
Meiyappan and Raj Kundra] taking part in
betting." He said he was "informed" by the ICC-
ACSU chief that this was not actionable
information. Raman accepted that this
information that he received about two team
officials being reportedly involved in betting
"was not conveyed to any other individual" by
him.
While passing its order last July, the Lodha

Commitee said that it "shall also examine the
role of Mr. Sundar Raman with or without
further investigation, into his activities, and if
found guilty, impose a suitable punishment upon
him on behalf of BCCI." The Lodha Panel was
granted an extension to complete its
investigations in addition to making
recommendations to overhaul the structure of
the BCCI. The final report is likely to be
submitted to the Supreme Court by the end of
December.
Raman had countered the Mudgal report by

filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court in
November 2014, stating one of his duties as the
IPL's chief operating officer was to interact with
various individuals, including celebrities and
officials, and that the interactions could not be
the basis for a misdemeanour.
India news December 21, 2015
Lodha panel to submit report on

BCCI on January 4
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
The RM Lodha committee will, on January 4,

submit its final report that deals with
recommending changes to the BCCI's
constitution and manner of functioning, a task
assigned to it by the Supreme Court at the start
of 2015.
It is understood that the three-member

committee will concurrently submit the report to
the court as well as the BCCI, before making it
public at a media conference. The panel had
sought an extension in July to complete the
report, following which the Supreme Court had
set a deadline of December 31.
The report assumes significance as the Supreme

Court has made it clear that the panel's
suggestions would be binding upon the BCCI.
The timing of the report interestingly coincides
with a reform drive initiated by BCCI president
Shashank Manohar after his election in October.
Incidentally, Manohar met the panel recently,
but refused to divulge any details.
In January this year, the Supreme Court tasked

the three-member panel - comprising Lodha,
a former Chief Justice of India, along with
retired Supreme Court judges Ashok Bhan and
RV Raveendran - with determining the quantum
of punishment for Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj
Kundra and their respective franchises. The
panel was also directed to "examine and make
suitable recommendations to the BCCI for such
reforms in its practices and procedures and such
considered necessary and proper."
The court wanted the committee to suggest

BCCI "with a view to preventing sporting frauds,
conflict of interests, streamlining the working of
BCCI to make it more responsive to the
expectations of the public at large."
The committee initiated that process in April
when it sent an exhaustive, pointed and
incisive 82-point questionnaire to various
high-ranked BCCI officials, both past and
present.
India news January 2, 2016
What to expect from the Lodha

panel
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
With the Lodha committee set to submit its recommendations to

the Supreme Court on Monday, ESPNcricinfo answers some
frequently asked questions pertaining to the panel and its
investigation
What is the Lodha committee?
The Lodha committee, which comprises three

members, was constituted by the Supreme
Courtin January 2015 while hearing various
cases related to the IPL 2013 corruption scandal,
including the public interest litigation filed by
the Cricket Association of Bihar. RM Lodha,
former chief justice of India, along with former
Supreme Court justices Ashok Bhan and RV
Raveendran are the three members of the panel.
What was the brief for the panel?
Along with determining the quantum of

punishment for the accused in the 2013 IPL
corruption scandal (which was out last July),
the Lodha Committee was also asked by the
Supreme Court to examine and make suitable
recommendations to the BCCI "for such reforms
in its practices and procedures and such
amendments in the memorandum of
Association, rules and regulations as may be
considered necessary and proper on matters set
out by the court."
What will happen on Monday?
Along with submitting its report to the Supreme

Court, the panel will also concurrently hand over
a copy of its report to the BCCI for its perusal.
Who will be the judges hearing the case?
The report would be submitted to the court. It is

not known exactly which judge(s) will hear the
case, but it is likely that TS Thakur, chief justice
of India, and justice Ibrahaim Kalifullah, the
two-judge bench which heard most of the 2013
case, might give out the final order on the case.
Will the recommendations be binding

upon the BCCI?
The panel would submit the recommendations to

the court, which has the powers to decide which
part(s) of the report would be binding upon the
BCCI.
Is there anything else the panel might

submit?
The Lodha committee was also asked by the

court to examine the role of former IPL chief
operating officer Sundar Raman "into his
activities" related to his role in the 2013 IPL
corruption scandal. The court asked the
committee to "impose a suitable punishment"
upon Raman on behalf of BCCI if he was found
guilty.
Raman was named in the Mudgal panel report

in 2014, which revealed that he knew "a contact
of a bookie and contacted him eight times in one
season", but claimed to be "unaware of his
connection with betting activities".The report
also said that Raman received information about
Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra betting,
but did not act on it. Meiyappan and Kundra
were banned for life after they were found guilty
by the Lodha committee.
BCCI governance structure a key

area for Lodha panel
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
With the Lodha committee set to submit its

recommendations on the BCCI's manner of
functioning to the Supreme Court on Monday,
the Indian board may face a radical makeover.
The recommendations, which are not binding
until the Supreme Court deems so, are
understood to cover almost every aspect of
Indian cricket with the aim of making the board
a more professionally run and publicly
accountable organisation.
These are some of the key areas which the three-

man committee is understood to have strong
concerns about and which are likely to feature
prominently in its report.
Professionalism
The utter lack of transparency and
accountability, the panel has observed, is a
disturbing trend both within the BCCI and the
state associations which form its members. It is
believed that the Lodha committee will
emphasise the need for professional
management of the sport, not only by having the
appropriate form of corporate organisation in
place but also by having a clear separation
between governance and management within the
organisation - creating a system of checks and
balances and public accountability at the same
time. This may require a departure from the
BCCI's current corporate structure - as a society
registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act - and a restructuring of the key
leadership positions, currently 'honorary' in
nature. Both have been features of the BCCI right
from its inception. Changes to the BCCI's
governance structure may be a key feature of the
recommendations.
Conflict of interest and ethics

Given the genesis of the Lodha panel's
appointment, it has quite naturally been deeply
concerned by the various conflict-of-interest
issues prevalent within the BCCI and state
associations. It is understood that the panel met
BCCI president Shashank Manohar a few months
ago and has since taken note of the various
measures undertaken by him on the issue of
conflict of interest. Manohar had written
a three-page letter, listing guidelines to avoid
conflict of interest, directed at BCCI members,
state associations, employees with the board and
state bodies, and former and current players.
Legal experts have called BCCI's move a "band-
aid" measure which only further serves the
powerful administrators.
Changes in BCCI's structure

It is understood that a variety of options were
suggested during the consultation process and
considered by the committee as potential
replacements for the BCCI's current structure as
a registered society in Tamil Nadu. While one
option would be to reformulate the BCCI's
governance and operations within its existing
corporate structure, legal experts believe that the
committee could also suggest more radical
changes, like a public trust structure.
Managing the IPL

The committee may suggest that, instead of
being run as a sub-committee, the IPL could be
spun off into a separate private limited company
promoted by the BCCI with an overt profit
motive, (or even a section-8 company that must
reinvest all its profits).
Clear definitions of management and
governance
The committee is likely to suggest that the
concepts of governance and management be
more clearly defined and separated. Given the
"public function" of the BCCI, recognised by the
Supreme Court, this could involve recognition
and wider representation of new stakeholders,
and resulting electoral reform.
The panel's recommendations could involve

doing away with the all-powerful working
committee. Instead the committee may
recommend a board of directors, representing
various stakeholders such as players, former
players, state associations and also the public.
This governing body could be tasked with setting
the broad agenda, setting targets and monitoring
progress, and providing oversight. The Lodha
committee could recommend that execution of
agendas be left to paid, full-time managers.
This could mean that the committee may advise

the BCCI to have a CEO, COO, a board
comprising representatives of major
shareholders (affiliates), and, importantly,
independent directors who do not have any
financial stake in the board but are representing
the public interest, a constituency that has not
seen representation thus far.
Criteria for state affiliation with BCCI

Having interviewed various stakeholders,
including former and current administrators in
the various states, the committee is likely to also
suggest rationalisation of the rules and criteria
for recognition of state bodies affiliated with the
BCCI. This could require disbanding a number of
existing voting members who have no playing
record. The committee may recommend a move
towards a one-state-one-body structure. It is also
likely to prioritise formulation and
implementation of mechanisms and practices for
the BCCI to exercise oversight over its members,
their structures, elections, operations and
finances.
This comes at a time when a probe into the Delhi

& District Cricket Association's historical
functioning, seen as a bellwether for more such
state-level investigations, is slated to commence
in Delhi. Transparency and accountability of
grants (subsidy) given to the state units could
particularly be in the cross-hairs of the
committee.
"If you look at the BCCI books you will probably

find them quite clean and they will stand up to
scrutiny. But dig deeper into the books of the
affiliates and there is going to be a big black hole.
You then begin to realise why honorary jobs in
state associations make sense to so many. The
committee will surely look to plug these gaping,
leaking holes," one legal expert said.
Conflict of interest still key point

on Lodha's agenda
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
The Lodha committee is expected to come down

severely on the glaring loopholes and absence of
any mechanism in the BCCI to deal with and
remove the conflict of interest issues both within
the board and the state associations. The conflict
of interest point is likely to be strongly
highlighted when the committee unveils its
recommendations on the governance of and
structural reforms for the BCCI, a task delegated
to the three-member panel by the Supreme Court
last July.
In the interviews conducted by the panel with

BCCI officials, it is understood that the first
question posed by the chairman of the
committee, RM Lodha, former chief justice of
India, was on conflicts. In his interactions with a
number of current and past BCCI officials, Lodha
made it clear that conflict had to be eradicated
completely if the BCCI wanted to bring in a
professional structure.
In their defence, a number of representations

were apparently made by senior BCCI officials to
the panel expressing the inevitability of former
cricketers needing to hold multiple positions to
make a decent living after retirement. This was
placed in the context of the existing BCCI
structure, where many posts are honorary and
part-time in nature. It was represented that
while this is far from an inconvenience to those
in politics or business, for retired cricketers their
residual sources of income would naturally be
from allegedly conflicting activities such as
coaching, commentary and media work.
Any intention to stop the former cricketers from
holding multiple roles, the panel was told, could
perversely drive former cricketers out of
leadership positions in the sport's
administration. While sympathetic to these
concerns, it is understood that the Lodha
committee's desire is for cricket administration
to move towards a culture and a structure where
conflict of interest is not seen as a given or a fait
accompli. The committee is likely to be of the
view that reforms must be wholesome and, when
combined with a BCCI structure with paid
professionals in key posts, there ought to be no
room or apology for conflict of interest.
Incidentally, the committee discussed all this

with Shashank Manohar immediately after he
was elected as the BCCI president in October.
Since then the BCCI has announced a slew of
measures that have pointed to a board that wants
to be transparent and professional. Manohar
issued a three-page directive to BCCI and state
association members, employees along with
players, coaches and selectors, listing out
guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest. The BCCI
also appointed an independent auditor in
PriceWatherhouseCoopers to check the books of
all the state associations to ascertain that the
various subsidies that were granted by the board
have been utilised appropriately.
However legal experts, who have knowledge of

the workings of the BCCI, remain cynical. They
feel in the absence of other reforms, this
standalone conflict of interest policy is a "band-
aid" measure and could further entrench existing
powerful administrators who have no playing
history. Experts believe that it would be
incomplete to stop just at conflict issues, and
that the Lodha Committee is likely to dig deeper
and will also look at other forms of impropriety,
whether these relate to favours, allocation of
match-hosting rights, ticketing, tendering and
contracting practices, etc. "As we have seen with
FIFA, there is a broader ethics challenge that
needs to be met head on when it comes to sports
administration," one legal expert said.
India newsJanuary 4, 2016
Lodha panel recommends severe

BCCI shake-up
ESPNCRICINFO STAFF
The Lodha committee appointed by the Supreme

Court has recommended a complete overhaul of
Indian cricket, from the very top down to the
grassroots level and affecting every
stakeholder.Its report, presented to the court
and made public today, covers every aspect of
the game with special focus on the BCCI's
administrative and governance structures and
the issue of transparency.
The most important set of recommendations

aims at transforming the entire power structure
in the board. It has changed the BCCI's
electorate to one association per state - some
states have three - and removed the vote from
associations without territorial definitions (e.g.,
Railways and Services).
Most significantly, it has suggested clear and

stringent eligibility criteria for the board's office-
bearers and set limits to their time in office.
Ministers and bureaucrats will not be allowed to
hold positions on the board, nor will those
holding positions in their state associations or
those above 70 years of age. That could rule out a
host of current office-bearers.
There will now be five elected office-bearers -

president, secretary, one vice-president instead
of the current five, treasurer and joint secretary -
and they will serve a maximum of three terms of
nine years each across positions. Also, they will
not be able to serve two consecutive terms - each
must be broken by a "cooling-off" period. And
the president's powers have also been curbed: he
no longer has an additional vote at meetings, nor
does he have a say in team selection.
Further clipping the current set-up's wings,

Justice Lodha's report has replaced the Working
Committee, the BCCI's highest decision-making
body, with a nine-member Apex Council, which
will include representatives from the players'
community - including one woman. There will
also be a nominee of the Comptroller and
Auditor General, presumably to keep an eye on
how the board's vast resources are being utilised.
There's also a big push for transparency, with the

recommended appointment of three
independent officials - an ombudsman, an ethics
officer and an election officer - to look into the
three contentious areas within the
BCCI: conflict of interest, dispute resolution
and election processes. It also set high eligibility
criteria for each, to ensure their independence.
Given the scope of these changes, the question

arises whether the proposals would be binding
upon the BCCI. Speaking to the media, Lodha
gave an indirect response, saying the panel's
objective was to finish the task at hand. "This is a
committee appointed by the Supreme Court of
India. The highest court of the land has
appointed the committee. The brief was given to
us and we have on completion of the brief
handed the report to the Supreme Court. The
rest we don't decide because our task is over."
However, sources close to the committee feel the

BCCI has no option but to implement it. "This is
something they should have done on their own.
They haven't done it. If these reforms have to
start, it starts with the BCCI finally now based on
what Manohar, when he took over as BCCI
president, when he said we will implement the
Lodha Committee report in the full. The first
reform would be for them sticking to the report
otherwise the court would force them to," an
official privy to the talks between the committee
and Manohar said.
The BCCI did not formally react to the contents

of the report and it is not clear whether it would
challenge it in court. While top board officials
closed ranks, the BCCI appears to have been
particularly stung by the proposals to bring it
under the ambit of the RTI, to bar ministers and
bureaucrats from holding office and introduce
the one-state, one-vote formula.
The BCCI's legal committee chairman PS Raman

had told ESPNcricinfo a few days ago that the
recommendations wouldn't be binding, and it is
that line the board's officials sought refuge in. It
is believed that Manohar and Thakur have asked
to meet with Raman during the weekend to
discuss the recommendations in detail.
One board official told ESPNcricinfo that a

partial implementation of the recommendations
was possible, too. "The order says clearly that
these recommendations are not binding. But we
will study them, if we think anything needs to be
done we will do it."
Lodha said that it was not for him to respond to

whether the BCCI could challenge the
committee's resolutions. "Now this is in public
domain. You will have deliberations. As I told
you there will be multiple responses. And the
Supreme Court is there. We are not suggesting
the course of action on this," Lodha said.
The panel - comprising Lodha, a retired Chief

Justice of India, and retired Supreme Court
judges, Ashok Bhan and R Raveendran - was
formed in January 2015 to determine
appropriate punishments for Raj Kundra,
Gurunath Meiyappan and their respective
franchises; decide on Raman's role in the IPL
2013 scandal, and propose changes to the BCCI's
functioning to streamline its functions and
prevent sporting fraud and conflict of interest.
In July 2015, it delivered on its first

task, suspending India Cements and Jaipur
IPL, the owners of the Chennai Super Kings and
Rajasthan Royals franchises, for a period of two
years, and handing life bans to Meiyappan and
Kundra against any involvement in cricket
matches.
Corruption in the IPL January 4, 2016
How the IPL fixing case led to

the Lodha report
A sequence of events starting from the IPL 2013 spot-fixing scandal reached its logical
conclusion when the three-member Lodha panel submitted its report on the functioning of
the BCCI to the Supreme Court on Monday. The panel proposed sweeping changes to deal
with significant issues like conflict of interest, which were thrown up within the board
during the investigation of the 2013 scandal. Here's a look back at the main events that
triggered the Lodha panel's recommendations for the BCCI's structure.
May 2013
S Sreesanth, Ankeet Chavan and Ajit Chandila

are arrested by the Delhi Police on charges of
fraud and cheating, for the alleged fulfillment of
promises made to bookies. The BCCI reacts
bysuspending the three players, who are later
released on bail. The Mumbai
Police arrestsGurunath Meiyappan, a top
official of the Chennai Super Kings franchise and
son-in-law of former BCCI president N
Srinivasan on May 24 on charges of cheating,
fraud and forgery. In June, Delhi Police
commissioner Neeraj Kumar claims Rajasthan
Royals co-owner Raj Kundra had has
confessed to betting on IPL matches, including
those involving his team; Kundra is later
suspended by the BCCI.
May 2013
The IPL governing council appoints a three-

member probe panel, including two former High
Court judges, to look into the complaints against
India Cements, Gurunath and Jaipur IPL Pvt
Ltd, the owners of Rajasthan Royals. Questions
about the panel are raised, however, after news
emerges that members of the governing
council were unaware of when and how the
three-man commission was selected for the
inquiry. The two-member panel submits its
report in July, andfinds "no evidence of any
wrongdoing" by Kundra and Gurunath.
July 2013
Responding to a public interest litigation by the

Cricket Association of Bihar, the Bombay High
Court states that the BCCI's probe panel
was constituted illegally, and says there was
disparity in the evidence collected by the panel.
The following month, the Supreme Court of
India issues notices to the BCCI, N Srinivasan,
his company India Cements - which owns Super
Kings - and Royals on an appeal challenging the
Bombay High Court order for not appointing a
fresh committee to probe the alleged corruption
in the IPL.
October 2013
The Supreme Court constitutes a three-
member probe panel to conduct an independent
investigation into the corruption allegations in
the IPL. The panel comprises former High Court
judge Mukul Mudgal, senior advocate and
additional solicitor general L Nageshwar Rao
and Assam Cricket Association member Nilay
Dutta. The committee is given four months to
complete its probe.
February 2014
The Mudgal probe panel's first report

finds evidence that Gurunath and Kundra
indulged in betting. Gurunath is also charged
with passing on information during IPL 2013.
The panel also submits to the court a sealed
envelope - to be opened and read only by the
judges - containing the names of persons
allegedly involved in sporting fraud. In March,
the Supreme Court asks then BCCI president N
Srinivasan to step down to allow for a fair
investigation of the IPL corruption scandal.
Justice AK Patnaik questions Srinivasan's
position, asking "How did he stay on despite all
the allegations? His staying on is nauseating for
cricket." The Supreme Court then proposesthat
Sunil Gavaskar replace N Srinivasan as BCCI
chief, and recommends that employees of India
Cements, of which Srinivasan is managing
director and which owns Super Kings, be kept
out of the BCCI set-up.
April 2014
The Supreme Court asks the Mudgal probe
panel to continue its investigation into the IPL
corruption scandal, in particular the 13 names
mentioned in the sealed envelope submitted to
the court in February. The panel is given greater
powers - including search and seizure of
relevant documents and recording evidence - to
investigate the contents of the sealed envelope
and the allegations in the IPL 2013 scandal. The
court directs the panel to submit a report in
August.
November 2014
The Supreme Court names four individuals -

Srinivasan, IPL chief operating officer Sundar
Raman, Gurunath and Kundra - in connection
with the Mudgal report into the 2013 IPL spot-
fixing case, which, the court observes, has
suggested several "misdemeanours". The report
finds Srinivasan not guilty of either betting or
fixing, or of trying to prevent the investigation
into the IPL 2013 corruption scandal. It states,
however, that he, along with four other BCCI
officials, knew about an IPL player violating the
code of conduct, but took no action. The report
says that Raman knew a contact of a bookie and
had contacted him eight times in a season,
and notes that investigations into Kundra
stopped "abruptly and without reason" when the
Rajasthan police was given information about
Kundra by the Delhi police.
January 2015
The Supreme Court strikes down a
controversial clause in the BCCI's constitution
that allowed board officials to have a commercial
interest in the IPL and the Champions League
T20. The court also appoints a new three-
member panel, headed by former Chief Justice of
India, RM Lodha, to decide on the quantum of
punishment for Meiyappan and Kundra and for
the respective franchises, if necessary, which
would be final and binding upon the BCCI and
the parties concerned. The panel is also directed
to look into the role of Raman in the spot-fixing
scandal and decide on a punishment, if
necessary. The panel is also asked to suggest
BCCI with a view to preventing sporting frauds
and conflict of interests, and make the board
more responsive to public expectations.
April 2015
As part of its study of BCCI processes, the panel

sends an 82-point questionnaire to top board
administrators seeking clarity on the way the
richest sports body in India functions. This
questionnaire, incisive and pointed, is in keeping
with the committee's brief from the court to
recommend changes to the BCCI's constitution
and manner of functioning.
July 2015
The committee suspends India Cements and

Jaipur IPL, the owners of the Chennai Super
Kings and Rajasthan Royals teams, for a period
of two years. The committee also bans for life
Meiyappan and Kundra from any involvement in
cricket matches.
January 2016
The Lodha panel submits its final report to the

Supreme court in which it recommends sweeping
changes to the BCCI's administrative and
governance structures.
IPL COO Raman let off due to

lack of 'cogent evidence'
The Lodha Panel has taken no action against
former IPL chief operating officer Sundar Raman
in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing
scandal on grounds that there was a lack of
"cogent evidence" against him.* One of the
tasks set by the Supreme Court for the Lodha
panel during its inception was to examine
Raman's role in the 2013 spot-fixing scandal and,
if applicable, impose a suitable punishment on
behalf of the BCCI.
The Lodha panel's report addressed seven

allegations against Raman and said there was
lack of "cogent evidence" to establish any direct
or indirect involvement in betting or any other
wrongful activity.
"On a close and careful independent look at the

evidence and material collected by the
Investigating Team, the Committee is of clear
opinion that neither Allegation Nos.1 and 5 nor
Allegation Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 stand
substantiated justifying any action against
Sundar Raman. His direct or indirect
involvement in any betting or otherwise
wrongful activities has not been establishment by
any cogent evidence," the report stated.
However, the report said the investigation had

arrived at the convlusion that he, "appeared to be
guilty of not sharing the information about
corruption in IPL, purportedly furnished by Sh.
YP Singh [the ICC ACSU chief] orally/informally
to him with the BCCI authorities which might
have helped in preventing the larger corruption
issues in the game which stood demonstrated in
May, 2013 (IPL Season of 2013)".
Raman was named as Individual 12 in the

Mudgal report, which said he "knew a contact
of a bookie and had contacted him eight times in
one season". When questioned by the Mudgal
panel, Raman "admitted" that he "knew" a
contact of the bookie, but claimed to be
"unaware of his connection with betting
activities". The report stated Raman "also
accepted" that he had received information about
"individual 1 and individual 11 [that is, Gurunath
Meiyappan and Raj Kundra] taking part in
betting". He said he was "informed" by the ICC-
ACSU chief that this was not actionable
information. Raman accepted that this
information that he received about two team
officials being reportedly involved in betting
"was not conveyed to any other individual" by
him.
Raman had been associated with the IPL since its

inception; he had been the right-hand man of
Lalit Modi and, after his removal in 2010,
worked closely with N Srinivasan. He stepped
downfrom his position in November last year,
prior to appearing before the Lodha committee.
*06.00GMT, January 5: This story has been updated
Lodha panel recommends

forming players' association
ARUN VENUGOPAL
Among the more sweeping of the Lodha

committee's recommendations is a players'
association, intended as a "necessary"
mechanism for addressing player concerns. It
would be radical because India is the only Test-
playing nation not to have a players' association -
and has not contemplated one in the recent past.
The BCCI has historically opposed the idea and
two earlier attempts have come to naught; this
latest venture, if mandated, will be financed by
the board and comprise only those players who
have retired from competitive cricket in all
forms.
Stricter rules for player agents
The Lodha Committee has proposed a rigorous system for a person to be

accredited as a player agent, who will be monitored by the BCCI in
conjunction with the players' association.
1. An applicant needs to submit a clearance certificate issued by the ICC

ACSU, and must not have any criminal record
2. There should no conflict of interest or dual representation
3. A player agent is required to undertake that he will charge no more than a

maximum agent fee of 2% of the total annual revenue earned
4. The five-member committee on agent regulation will have powers to

initiate disciplinary proceedings against agents
The committee has appointed a four-member

standing committee, comprising former union
home secretary GK Pillai (chairperson) and
former India cricketers Mohinder Amarnath,
Anil Kumble and former India women captain
Diana Edulji, to "identify and invite all eligible
ex-cricketers to be members, to open bank
accounts, receive funds from the BCCI, conduct
the first elections for office bearers,
communicate the names of BCCI player
nominees to the board."
The committee, having taken note of the BCCI's

"apprehension of unionisation", has deemed it
important to give the players "a voice to raise
their concerns" while barring them from forming
a "trade union of any sort." It recommends the
need to advance the welfare of players, including
insurance, medical and other commercial
benefits.
In the early 2000s, a group of players, including
MAK Pataudi (president), Arun Lal (secretary),
Anil Kumble, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid,
Sourav Ganguly, Ravi Shastri and Abbas Ali Baig
were the founding members of a players'
association, but that eventually served as no
more than a means to the end of player
contracts.
"The BCCI would tell the senior players 'we will

give you what you want, why do you need an
association?'," a source privy to the formation of
the association then told ESPNcricinfo. "They
would talk to Ganguly, Dravid, Tendulkar and
Kumble as senior players but not as
representatives of a players' association."
He said there was an effort to organise a body

under Kapil Dev as the president in the late 80s
as well to put forward genuine concerns. "Playing
cricket was not a career then. Ranji Trophy
cricketers would only get Rs 50 a day to play a
match. This was not [an attempt to get] a larger
share of the pie, it's just genuine concerns."
The source said the board always looked at

players' associations as "anti-establishment"
bodies, and would discourage them overtly and
covertly. "Everybody didn't join because they
were scared. I don't blame them. If my state
association secretary warns me against joining
such an association, how will I dare join then?"
Former India fast bowler Javagal Srinath felt

the players' association was a greater
responsibility of the players than the board. "It's
up to the boys," he said. "At that time we felt
there was a need for all of us to come together.
We started cricket as a profession [for the first
time]. Anything of that sort is always a start and
stop kind of thing in India.
"Even if it was started by someone there have to

be reasons for players to see what could be
achieved from players' association."
The source, however, felt the senior players in

the early 2000s didn't carry forward the early
momentum that was achieved. "It's also the fault
of the players because you start something with
conviction and you don't follow it through," he
said. "They were the power base at the time and
owed it to the next generation to carry it through.
"The BCCI was willing to help out as long as you

approached them as players and not as players'
association representatives. The best way to kill
an association is give them what they want so
that there is no need for one for a while, and it
dies a natural death."
Srinath, though, was of the belief the time was

ripe for such an association to come into being,
given that players have a more professional
outlook.
"Cricket has taken such a big professional

dimension in India. It will be good for the game,
the board and the players," he said. "I think more
than addressing the rights, it's players coming
under the umbrella, players starting to accept
various contracts.
"It's just not about fighting for your rights alone,
because most things are taken care of. The odd
incident has to be customised, but I don't think
any player is put under any financial discomfort.
"
A BCCI official took a contrarian view and

suggested that the creation of such associations
would encourage politicisation and politicking
among players.
"Such politics is already there in the BCCI and a

lot of state associations, and you curse it day in
and day out," he said. "You will have a situation
where this will happen among players as well.
Why would you want that? Won't these
associations have control over players and create
lobbies? In any case, the interests of the players
have been traditionally looked after by the BCCI
more than anybody else."
Arun Venugopal is a correspondent at ESPNcricinfo
Selection panel to be smaller,

more empowered
SIDHARTH MONGA
If the reforms suggested by the Lodha

Committee are put to practice, the selection of
Indian teams and support staff will undergo big
changes, giving more powers and responsibilities
to the selectors, captains and the CEO. The
captain will become an ex-officio member of the
selection committee, which doesn't give him a
vote but spells out that his view shall prevail
when there is indecision among the selectors.
The committee itself has been reduced to three
members, and has also been entrusted - along
with the CEO - with selecting the support staff of
the national team. The squad selection will no
longer have to be ratified by the board president.
The India captain right now is invited to

selection-committee meetings, but does not hold
a vote. The annexure of the report submitted by
Lodha, describing the functions of the selection
committee, says: "The men's selection committee
shall appoint a captain for the team in each
format, who shall be an ex-officio member of the
committee. The captain, however shall not be
entitled to vote. In the event of there being an
equality of votes for the appointment of a
captain, the chairperson shall have a casting
vote. In the event of there being no majority
agreement over the selection of players, the
captain's wishes in that regard shall prevail."
Mohinder Amarnath, a former national

selector, had alleged in 2012 that the selection
committee wanted MS Dhoni removed as the
ODI captain in 2012, but the then BCCI
president N Srinivasan, also a managing director
of India Cements, which owned Dhoni's IPL
team, vetoed that selection until Dhoni retained
his status. That kind of situation will not repeat
itself should the recommendations be
implemented.
India have been without a long-term coach or
support staff for about a year now. The board
officials have struggled to find replacements for
Duncan Fletcher and team, and have extended
the contracts of Ravi Shastri and team on an
almost a series-by-series basis. They won't have
to spend any more energy looking for the coach
and support staff. The responsibility will, in all
likelihood, be shared between the CEO and the
selection committee.
One of the functions of the CEO, as per the

annexure, is: "to appoint team officials for the
Indian teams, which shall compulsorily include
qualified coaches, managers, physiotherapists,
nutritionists, trainers, analysts, counsellors and
medics."
At the same time it gives the selection committee

the responsibility of "vetting and selecting
coaches and support staff (physiotherapists,
trainers, therapists, analysts and medics) for the
respective teams". There is more accountability
expected of the selectors, which is one of the
reasons why they have lost two of their
colleagues. The selection committee, as it stands,
consists of five members representing each zone.
Now, with a suggestion of incorporating different
talent-development committees for men,
women, junior, zonal and differently abled
categories, the Lodha Panel felt there was no
need for a zonal-based five-member senior
selection panel.
"Restricting the selectors to three members will

also be more compact, and increase the authority
of the selection committee, and make it
accountable for team performance, the report
said.
One of the added responsibilities of the selection

committee will be to provide "evaluation reports
of the respective team performances to the apex
council on a quarterly basis."
The selectors will be appointed at the AGM based

on terms and conditions decided by the apex
council. The apex council will consist of five
elected officials (president, secretary, vice
president, joint secretary and treasurer), a male
and a female players' representative, one
representative of the state associations and the
comptroller and auditor general of India.
The selectors will all have to be former Test

players at least five years into retirement, and
will be headed by the "senior-most Test cap
among the members".
Sidharth Monga is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo
For transparency and oversight,

RTI and independent watchdogs
Two of the biggest problems with the BCCI as it
currently exists are its lack of transparency and
lack of accountability. The Lodha Committee
report could blow that out of the water: It seeks
to bring the BCCI under the Right to Information
Act, a path-breaking federal law that makes the
working of high-profile organisations open and
accessible to the public, and has recommended
the appointment of three officials - an
ombudsman, an ethics officer and an electoral
officer - to make it more accountable.
The BCCI - and other national sports bodies in

India - has for long opposed being brought under
the purview of the RTI Act, arguing it is not a
public body as are the other organisations under
the law. It is currently battling a case in the
Madras High Court against efforts to bring it
under the RTI.
However, the Lodha Committee believes the

BCCI has little option but to comply. "Although
suggestions have been given in a report that
gives transparency in the function and
administration by the BCCI, the committee feels
that since the BCCI performs public functions
people have right to know the functions and
facilities and other activities of the BCCI and
therefore in our opinion whether the RTI Act is
applicable to BCCI or BCCI is amenable to RTI is
sub judice [in Madras High Court]," Justice
Lodha said in Delhi after making the report
public. "We have recommended the legislature
must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the
purview of the RTI Act."
In its exhaustive 159-page report, the committee

listed the various reports the BCCI needs to
publish on its website. It includes rules and
regulations of the BCCI and IPL, details of the
various committees of the BCCI and the IPL, the
financial outlays for tournaments like the IPL,
the cases referred to the ombudsman and the
findings, audited accounts of the BCCI and
annual reports.
One of the recommendations, of publishing

payments made in excess of 25 lakhs and above,
has already been done by the BCCI after
Shashank Manohar took over as board president.
According to Lodha, the three authorities of

ombudsman, electoral officer and eithcs officer
will have "distinct" and "different" roles. The
ombudsman, prescribed by the committee,
would need to be a retired judge of the Supreme
Court or a former chief justice of the High Court,
and would be appointed at every AGM.
Incidentally, at its AGM on November 9, the

BCCI appointed AP Shah, retired chief justice of
the Delhi and Madras High Courts, as the
ombudsman. The primary task for the
ombudsman, the committee defined, was to
provide the internal dispute resolution
mechanism for various disputes arising in the
BCCI.
The committee outlined the grievances which

could be disputed within the BCCI, the BCCI and
the members (state associations), the BCCI and
the associate members, or the BCCI and the IPL
franchises. The panel said in such instances and
in the case of any misconduct or breach of rules
by an administrator, member, player, team
official, selector or coach, the ombudsman will
investigate and his verdict would be binding.
Lodha pointed out that any member of the public
could approach the ombudsman if he was
aggrieved concerning ticketing, access and
facilities at the various cricket grounds in India.
The Ethics Officer, the committee pointed out,

should be appointed for the "purposes of
guidance and resolution in instances of conflict
of interest" cases. The officer would be a retired
High Court judge and would be once again
appointed at the BCCI AGM for a one-year
tenure with a maximum of three terms possible.
The other key appointment is that of an Electoral

Officer who would play a role similar to that of
an election commissioner. In fact, the officer
would have to be a former member of the
Election Commission of India.
To make the voting process more transparent,

the Electoral Officer would overlook the exercise
throughout - right from adjudicating whether a
nominee or a candidate is eligible to vote or
stand for elections, to resolving disputes
disqualifications, eligibility to vote, or the
admission or rejection of a vote in the elections
to the Apex Council, the Players' Cricket
Association or any of the other BCCI committees.
The officer's decision would be final and
conclusive, the committee has pointed out.

'No caution taken to protect the
sport from the orgy of excess'
SIDHARTH MONGA
The Lodha committee's report has sent the BCCI into a room full
of mirrors. ESPNcricinfo lists out some of its most damning bits
What the supreme court had found about

the BCCI left it no choice but to intervene
through the Lodha committee
"These include serious inaction regarding betting
and match-fixing, frequent amendments to the
rules to enable persons in power to perpetuate
their control and promote their financial
interests, permitting or enabling its office
bearers, employees and players to do acts which
clearly give rise to conflicts of interest which
have no resolution mechanism, lack of
transparency and accountability, failure to
provide effective grievance redressal
mechanisms and a general apathy towards
wrongdoing."
Political protection and government

functionaries haven't helped matters
"It became clear that many ills had become
endemic due to the apathy or involvement of
those who were at the helm of the board's
administration; that many of these were high
functionaries in the central and state
governments further compounded the problem,
as did the fact that several incumbents had
remained in charge of state associations for
several decades. Many officials of the various
state associations hold power without adhering
to the basic principles of accountability and
transparency by converting them into regional
fiefdoms."
Those in power have found ways - not

always noble - to remain in power
"Policies have been formulated and altered to
suit the needs of a few powerful individuals, and
coteries have formed around them, which has
polarised and compromised independent
leadership."
"The IPL has obviously been the most visible,

remunerative and glamourised component of
cricket in India over the last eight years, but with
big money and attention, there has not been the
necessary caution to protect the sport and its
players from the orgy of excess that quickly
began to envelope the event. As events unfolded
over the last few years, it was clear that
unsavoury interferences had reached the highest
echelons of cricket and overlapping and
conflicting interests were not only condoned, but
those in governance of the Board had made ex-
post facto amendments to facilitate the same."
It was widely suspected that the BCCI's

recent attempts at reform were not quite
voluntary. This report confirms it, with
these responses from the BCCI to the
questionnaire sent to them by the Lodha
committee
"The then President Mr Jagmohan Dalmiya and
Secretary Mr Anurag Thakur even sent identical
responses to it. We are glad to note that having
obtained a broad picture from the questionnaire
about how the Committee intended to proceed,
BCCI started taking some action, or at least
made some announcements touching upon the
contents of the questions
Fans and women's cricket have for long

been last on conventional priority lists.
Not for this committee
"While massive funds flow into the coffers of the
BCCI and the IPL through the sale of television
and media rights and sponsorship deals, little
commensurate advantage finds its way to the
members of public who stand in snaking long
queues, often unable to obtain tickets, and if
lucky, to stumble into stadia without access to
basic amenities."
"A most unfortunate fact that was made known

to the committee was that the Indian women's
cricket team had last played a Test match eight
years ago. Coupled with general chauvinism, the
women players receive paltry earnings and have
only a one-month long domestic season."
Those who helm the game come from mixed milieu - some are patrons
seeking to promote the sport, while others seek to promote themselves,
with no particular attention being paid to cricket itself
State associations constitute the BCCI.
The associations themselves and the
BCCI's dealings with them have both
come in for severe criticism
"Rajasthan tells a different tale, with the election
of an apparently unpalatable figure making the
entire association, and thus the State, persona
non grata."
On how the cricketers of Rajasthan are
paying for the BCCI's dislike of Lalit
Modi
"The priority often seems to be to have an
exclusive venue with bar and dining facilities
with other recreational avenues for the members,
and not the promotion of cricket"
"No detailed accounts are maintained, no

oversight or audit is carried out, and on the rare
occasion where a particular Association has been
found wanting, there is no follow-up action"
The power of the powerful in the BCCI

has been supreme and unquestionable.
The report comes down hard on them
"Those who helm the game come from mixed
milieu - some are patrons seeking to promote the
sport, while others seek to promote themselves,
with no particular attention being paid to cricket
itself"
The all-powerful working committee is

not just the judge, jury and executioner.
It is the legislature too
"As far as the BCCI is concerned, the working
committee not only lays down the relevant rules,
regulations and bye-laws that govern the BCCI,
but also oversees their implementation and takes
final decisions when a member or third party
challenges either the rule or the manner of its
implementation"
The BCCI has been reluctant to recognise

a players' body fearing unionism, but
didn't shy away from imposing an
Indian, L Sivaramakisnan, as the
players' representative in the ICC. The
irony didn't escape the committee
"As every other Test-playing nation has a players'
association, and even the players' representative
at the ICC is an Indian, it is only fitting that an
independent players' association is established."
The failure to acknowledge and

understand the concept of conflict of
interest has been a source of major
frustration for everybody outside the
Indian cricket set-up. The Lodha
committee now shares the feeling
"During the course of the last few months, the
committee has come to learn of several instances
of obvious conflict where contracts have been
entered into by the BCCI, where the contractor
or vendor includes family members of an office
bearer. The fact that there was no voluntary
disclosure makes matters worse, raising a
presumption of wrongdoing and subterfuge
against the individuals in question.
"Before the IPL, it could well have been argued

that the BCCI felt no cause to take steps in this
regard, but with its advent, the conduct of the
BCCI has been to accommodate the conflict
rather than to prevent it. Unfortunately, matters
needed to reach the highest court of the land
before the BCCI decided to take tentative steps
towards setting its house in order."
That the BCCI has sought to control the

message by making the messengers
reliant on it for their livelihood has not
escaped the committee's sharp eyes
"Many stakeholders, in the course of interactions
with the committee, stated that very little of the
functioning of the BCCI is done in a fair and
transparent manner and that those who seek
greater information are either rebuffed by the
board or won over by enticements. Those whose
professional livelihoods depend on cricket
acknowledge the BCCI's total sway over the
sport, and choose to remain silent rather than
upset the apple cart
"Even in regard to cricket commentary, games

organised by the BCCI have a contractual
condition that there can be no criticism of the
BCCI or its selection process, thereby curtailing
an exercise of free speech."
Sidharth Monga is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo
January 5, 2016
Lodha panel has delivered, over

to the BCCI
SHARDA UGRA
There is now a detailed pathway for how the BCCI can reform all
aspects of its governance. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide
exactly how
The 150-odd pages of the Justice Lodha

committee recommendations to the Supreme
Court about the governing of the BCCI form an
astonishing document. It runs through 10
chapters and then more, playing sledgehammer
across some sections and comfort pillow in
others.
Sledgehammer to entrenched administrators and

comfort pillow to Indian fans who believe they
are entitled to dream. The report offers an earth-
shaking raft of recommendations. To what extent
they are implemented is now dependent on the
Supreme Court's next instructions, and the
BCCI's lawyers.
The report offers no new revelations, and

contains no previously unspotted fault-lines.
What it deals with was always known and in the
public domain, even if some of it - like the BCCI's
constitution and accounts - tended to be kept
secret until four months ago.
The good judges have acknowledged, with

fulsome praise, the BCCI's scale of operations,
the logistical efficiency of staff, and its financially
self-sufficiency. They have said that none of the
recommendations will challenge the board's
autonomy or "interfere [with] or limit" its work.
What the Lodha report does instead is duly detail
- and very thoroughly - the rather large loopholes
in the BCCI's essential governance framework
and functioning and their unprofessional
consequences.
At the end of their year-long exercise, the Lodha

panel has asked the BCCI to self-regulate and
helpfully given them a detailed pathway to do so.
What kind of people would say no to self-
improvement?
Through their dissection, examination and

inspection of the BCCI's functioning, the
venerable judges have put a question to those in
the highest offices of cricket administration, and
indeed of all sports administration in India: why
are you here?
The Lodha panel recommendations are so wide-ranging and thorough that the
BCCI can neither miss the wood nor the trees
For the love of sport? Or for the position and the

power and the perks it brings? Take away the
power and the perks and will the love remain?
While every official's earliest intentions might

have been to drive change in a sport they truly
cared about, as time went on, the trappings of
the position led to the development of an
organisation with a "general apathy towards
wrongdoing".
At the height of the IPL scandal in 2013, a former

player turned official, unhappy as the BCCI's
unseemly power struggles played out on news
television, said, "You must come into the board
to give to the game, not to take from it." The
Lodha panel recommendations want this
principle to apply to everyone at the top of the
BCCI - all the way down to the heads of the
smallest state association. The recommendations
will shake the foundations of Indian cricket
administration because that is what the panel
believed needed to be done. Indian cricket, it
said, needs "not cosmetic but fundamental
change".
The radical solutions have been arrived at by

applying two simple tests: "Whether this
[measure] will benefit the game of cricket" and
"What does the Indian cricket fan want?" The
ecosystem - of tournaments, games, players,
schedules - has been kept intact, but the BCCI's
power structures have been taken apart and
governance has been separated from the game's
daily management.
The Lodha panel report reaches deep into the

BCCI's essential building blocks - the state
associations and demands that the BCCI ensures
its members replicate changes at the top down
the order. It suggests scrapping many
fundamental BCCI quirks that are centred
around voting rights, and has shaken the tree so
hard that any aspiring young official must
wonder whether there is any fruit left on it at all.
At one point, the report says, "Individual interest

will have to be sacrificed for the sake of the
institution and no exigency of convenience or
convention shall stand in the way of the whole
structural overhaul." On another day, those
words could have been from a newspaper
editorial produced during some routine BCCI
saga. This, though, belongs to a report ordered
by the highest court in India, one that contains
mind-altering stuff for the BCCI. It is full of
words and phrases like "independent" and
"professional" and "external consultant". Bring
them on, it says.
The Lodha panel has worked over the BCCI in
such fine detail that there will no doubt be
murmurs of "judicial overreach". That is a valid
argument on some occasions but also used as a
handy stick by those receiving inconvenient
judgements from the courts. There will be
resistance and there will be quibbles, because
power is never ceded easily. The questions
arising from the recommendations will be many,
because the panel has covered every aspect of the
BCCI's functioning: from the president's office to
the ticket counters at stadiums.
Are three selectors better than five? How can a

CEO appoint a coach? Can't the best selectors
not come from among heavily feted Test players?
Does a captain also become a selector? As if
television will ever agree to cutting down on
adverts during matches - don't these guys
understand the modern sports industry?
Whatever they may think about the modern

sports industry, the Lodha panel have certainly
set a modern industry governance standard for
the BCCI.
There are several parts of the panel's

recommendations - pertaining to limits of age
and the tenures of officials, and accountability -
that find reflection in India's National Sports
Code, which aims to restructure all Indian
Olympic sport, and has been resolutely dead-
batted by political patrons across party lines. The
report mentions that the Supreme Court had
pointed out the "tacit concurrence and support of
the Central and State Governments in activities
which create a monopoly over cricket". Replace
the word "cricket" with any other sport and that
is tale of sporting governance in India.
What the Lodha panel has done is cover every

aspect of how the game is governed, over and
above how it is managed or operated. The panel
has focused on the background stuff that makes
Indian cricket such a whirling circus of conflicts
of interests, monopolies, sleight-of-hand favours,
and a VIP culture. In an environment where
roles, functions and friendships overlap, the idea
of "conflict of interest" has been difficult for
players and officials to deal with, but it was
brought into the centre of the IPL spot-fixing
case by the Supreme Court.
Like patient teachers explaining to slightly dazed
students, the panel has spelt out what conflict of
interest means, using a list of examples - as
many as 22. No names are taken but famous folk
are easily identified. "Several cricketers of
impeccable repute were surprised when queried
about what were obviously potential conflict
situations, needing to be convinced that no
wrongdoing was necessary for a conflict to exist.
The Committee had to point out to them that the
very holding of a position which could be abused
to undermine the integrity of the game renders
the occupant vulnerable to such a charge."
The panel has essentially laid out an entirely new

BCCI constitution with a set of tough rules -
largely for the rulers. It has brought women
cricketers and players of disability - who for most
of the last decade have been ignored or left on
the outer reaches - into the BCCI's mainstream
administration set-up.
What the Lodha panel asks of every high-ranking

elected "honorary" BCCI official is whether they
would pitch for a job that, in a changed set-up,
offers a limited term, fewer rewards, and one
that will have to be given up after three years.
The Lodha panel recommendations are so wide-

ranging and thorough that the BCCI can neither
miss the wood nor the trees. What they do with
the recommendations will decide whether sports
governance in this country has any chance in
hell.
Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo
The Lodha committee's

recommendations on the BCCI
A sequence of events starting from the IPL
2013 spot-fixing scandal reached its
logical conclusion when the three-member
Lodha panel submitted its report on the
functioning of the BCCI to the Supreme
Court on January 4, 2016. Here's what the
panel recommended, and reactions to the
same.
January 4, 2016
News - Lodha panel recommends severe BCCI
shake-up
News - Manohar, Thakur in potential conflict
situations
News - Lodha panel recommends forming
players' association
News - Selection panel to be smaller, more
empowered
News - For transparency and oversight, RTI and
independent watchdogs
News - IPL COO Raman let off due to lack of
'cogent evidence'
Quotes - The most damning bits of the report:
'No caution taken to protect the sport from the
orgy of excess'
Video - Amrut Joshi, sports law expert:
Potentially game-changing recommendations
Video - Joshi: Players' association not just for
collective bargaining
Video - 'Restricting state association voting
rights good move'
Video - 'Recommendations on conflict of
interest well considered'
Video - Ugra: Test record doesn't amount to
selection pedigree
January 5
Ugra: What the Lodha panel has done

News - Former India selectors question Lodha
proposals on selection
January 6
News - Lodha report could change cricket's TV
economy
January 7
News - BCCI silent in public but starts internal
response
Video - Ugra: A familiar way for BCCI to tread
For a timeline of how the IPL fixing case

led to the Lodha recommendations,
click here.
Former India selectors question

Lodha proposals on selection
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
Pruning the national selection committee from

five to three, as the Lodha report has
recommended, would be a bad idea given the
size of the country and the number of first-class
teams involved. That's the opinion of three
former selectors - Dilip Vengsarkar, Kiran
More andSanjay Jagdale - who say that the
increased workload cannot be offset by the
proposed Talent Committee that will do the basic
scouting.
One of the key reforms proposed by the Lodha

committee, which submitted its various
recommendations on Monday, was to limit the
selection panel to three former players, all Test
cricketers, retired at least five years prior to their
appointment. According to the Lodha
committee, a Talent Committee would facilitate
the national selectors, reduce their workload and
effectively "increase the authority" of the panel.
But all the former selectors ESPNcricinfo spoke

to disagreed. "India is such a vast country. At the
moment the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy [the
domestic Twenty20 tournament] is taking place
across four venues. Suppose there are three
selectors, then how many games can they
watch?" More, the former Indian wicketkeeper,
said. According to More, it would not be the right
decision to adopt the same structure that is in
place in countries like Australia, which have only
a handful of first-class teams.
More felt at least four selectors are required, but

he was happy to have the four best men from
around the country chosen instead of zonal
representation, which has been the norm for
long and opens up the possibility of nepotism.
Former Madhya Pradesh allrounder Jagdale,

who served two terms as a national selector
between 2000 and 2008 as part two selection
panels, said that the five-man panel was a
"proven formula", so why change that now.
Former India captain Vengsarkar said he would

stick to five-selectors policy. "The game has
spread even to the small cities. The BCCI is
sending grants to every association and they in
turn are creating the infrastructure to encourage
youngsters to play the game. So the player pool
has increased now," Vengsarkar, who is now the
director of the National Cricket Academy, said.
He pointed out the proposed Talent Committee
has already been put in place by the BCCI, with
the plan to appoint 30 talent and research
development officers (TRDOs) comprising three
scouts at the Under-16 and Under-19 levels each,
across the five zones.
Asked whether three selectors would not be

enough, given the 30 scouts on the junior circuit
providing feedback, Vengsarkar felt more is still
better. "It always helps to have more views and
opinions on a particular selection at times," he
said.
According to More, relying on talent scouts was

never enough. "Recommendations are fine. But
you have to see the player yourself, you have to
study the conditions. One guy could score a
century but a on a pata (flat) wicket whereas
another batsman might score 50 on a difficult
wicket."
As for the proposal on the panel comprising only

Test players, Vengsarkar and More differed.
More preferred a mix, keeping in the mind the
importance of limited-overs cricket and how it
would not be correct to ignore former players
who might have been good in the shorter formats
but missed out on playing Tests. Vengsarkar felt
if a player had dealt with the rigours of Test
cricket successfully, he could easily adapt his
thinking to the shorter formats even if he might
never had played or excelled at them.
Jagdale did not want to comment whether

having a Test cap was an important prerequisite
for being a selector. "It would not be fair for me
to say anything," he said. "I was a non-Test
playing selector for such a long period."
Lodha report could change

cricket's TV economy
ARUN VENUGOPAL
One of the more radical recommendations of the

Lodha panel report is one that would resonate
most with cricket fans: restricting advertisement
breaks during broadcast of Tests and ODIs in
India to only the drinks, lunch and tea intervals.
This effectively would mean no ad breaks at the
end of overs, which could turn the Indian cricket
economy on its head and, according to those in
the TV business, ultimately send subscription
rates sky high.
The Lodha report is fairly clear: "It is

recommended that all existing contracts for
international Test & One-Day matches be revised
and new ones ensure that only breaks taken by
both teams for drinks, lunch and tea will permit
the broadcast to be interrupted with
advertisements, as is the practice internationally.
Also, the entire space of the screen during the
broadcast will be dedicated to the display of the
game, save for a small sponsor logo or sign."
Taking note of how commerce has "overtaken"

the enjoyment of cricket, the Lodha panel
pointed to how "regardless of the wicket that has
fallen, century having been hit or other
momentous event, full liberty is granted to
maximise the broadcaster's income by cutting
away to a commercial, thereby robbing sport of
its most attractive attribute - emotion."
The recommendation stems from the

committee's belief that fans' viewing experience
is interrupted in international games. To offset
the commercial impact of this recommendation,
the committee exempted the IPL, from which the
BCCI makes the bulk of its revenues. The
recommendation would ensure the viewers
would have uninterrupted views of the game, the
changes, and the emotions even at change of
ends.
One of India's top sports broadcasting

professionals, however, felt such
recommendations would have a "cascading
effect" on Indian cricket's ecosystem. "There is a
certain cost that a broadcaster pays, a certain
rights fee," he told ESPNcricinfo. "The rights fee
has to be recovered either through a combination
of advertising and subscription or only through
subscription. The broadcaster does some
recovery from advertising."
According to him, a reduction in the quantum of

advertisements would invariably result in a
greater burden of subscription fee being passed
on to the end consumer. He pointed to the
scenario in the US where the subscription
charges are significantly higher when compared
to India.
"Right now they [subscribers in India] barely pay
Rs 5-10 for a cricket channel like Star Sports or
Sony Max," the official said. "[If advertising
revenue is curbed] it will jump to the levels in the
US."
He said advertisements wouldn't get much play

during the lunch or tea intervals as viewers tune
out. This, in his opinion, would result in a fall in
the number of advertisements and the value of
advertisement inventory. It is understood that
Star Sports, who hold the broadcast rights for
Indian cricket, wouldn't stand to lose since its
contract with the BCCI allows for renegotiation
of terms should the recommendations come into
effect.
The official, though, felt the larger problem was

the financial implications it would have on the
BCCI given the revenue earned from sale of
broadcast rights was the board's major cash cow.
"What a broadcaster can pay for these rights will
have to be revised downwards, and I mean really
substantially. The numbers will go down by half
if not more.
"The BCCI is a healthy body and you have so

much cricket infrastructure in this country
because the BCCI gets all this money," he said.
"Let us say if the implications of all this would
mean a billion-dollar contract becomes half-a-
billion dollar contract then the BCCI's capacity to
invest in cricket will have to come down by half."
He also said it would dissuade broadcasters from

investing in Indian cricket given other viable
options. "If a broadcaster is looking at cricket
then everybody should dump BCCI rights and
start bidding for Australia and England and
South Africa and rights of other countries where
none of these encumbrances apply. Tomorrow if
I have to bid I will bid for those rights."
The official also felt there were inconsistencies in

the manner the committee had exempted T20
cricket, more specifically the IPL, from these
regulations. "Cricket rights are already seriously
overheated on per-match value," the official said.
"For the BCCI rights, Star Sports pays around Rs
43 crore, while in the IPL the per-match license
fee is only about Rs 10-11 crore, they are fine for
the ads to run.
"If Star is expected to cough up Rs 43 crore, it

would need legitimate avenues to recover that
money. A broadcaster wouldn't mind broadcasts
being made totally ad-free but then the value of
the rights will have to be equally adjusted."
While it is learned the committee studied

broadcast models adopted in countries like
Australia and the UK, there is no reference in its
report to broadcasting corporations in India
being interviewed. "They didn't speak to
companies like Star or Sony," the official said. "I
don't know what input they have used [to arrive
at the recommendations]."
With inputs from Nagraj Gollapudi. Arun Venugopal is a correspondent at

ESPNcricinfo.

Madras High Court dismisses
plea challenging CSK suspension
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition
from Chennai Super Kings Cricket Ltd
challenging the Lodha Committee order to
suspend IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings for
two years.
The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay

Kishan Kaul and Justice PS Sivagnanam, who
had reserved their order on the plea on
December 14, dismissed it as not maintainable.
The bench also dismissed a PIL filed by BJP
leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the
suspension of Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals
on the same grounds.
Both teams were barred from playing the next

two editions of the IPL after a three-member
panel appointed by the Supreme Court and
headed by former Chief Justice of India RM
Lodha found top officials from both teams
having engaged in illegal betting. Super Kings'
Gurunath Meiyappan and Royals co-owner Raj
Kundra were banned for life from any match
conducted by the board.
Chennai Super Kings Cricket Ltd had sought a

stay on the committee's order issued in
September last year, contending the order was
against fundamental principles of natural justice
and a fair hearing.
Opposing the petition, the BCCI had argued that

Chennai Super Kings Cricket Ltd was not a legal
entity and hence could not file the case. Senior
counsel AL Somayaji submitted that CSK Cricket
Limited was only a brand name of the franchise
owned by India Cements Limited. He submitted
that the franchise agreement was between BCCI
and India Cements and that the latter had no
right to assign or delegate ownership and even if
it did should be done so with prior permission
from the BCCI.
He had argued that CSK Cricket Limited was not

the aggrieved party and hence the liberty given
by the Supreme Court that the aggrieved could
approach the appropriate forum for remedy
would not entitle it to file the present petition.
India news February 4, 2016
Supreme Court gives BCCI one

month, little wriggle room to
respond to Lodha report
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
The Supreme Court of India has asked the BCCI

to let it know by March 3 whether it would
implement the recommendations made by the
Lodha Committee on January 4. The two-judge
bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur, and
Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah said it was happy with
the Lodha report and had accepted it, and
indicated that the BCCI should accept and
implement it as well.
"If you have any difficulty in implementing it we

will have the Lodha Committee implement it for
you," Justice Thakur told the BCCI counsel, a
view he repeated several times.
In an oral submission before the court on

January 25, the Cricket Association of Bihar, the
original petitioner, wanted the bench to take up
the matter for hearing. It was responding to a
letter received from the court's Registrar, who
had written to both the BCCI and CAB informing
it was placing the Lodha Report in front of the
two-judge bench.
In its response, the BCCI's legal counsel said that

it had a lot of reservations. He told the court that
BCCI's three-man legal committee was scheduled
to meet this Sunday to review the Lodha report.
He also pointed out that the BCCI had sent the
report to the state associations to individually
seek their feedback. He told the court that there
were certain anomalies found in the Lodha
report and the BCCI would need more time to
study and further review the Lodhal Panel
recommendations.
However Justice Thakur dismissed the request

for any extension, saying the court could allow
spending more time for any further discussions.
He also said the court was going to accept the
Lodha report completely and implement it.
The BCCI then requested a little more time to

respond where they would give some
suggestions.
The Lodha committee, appointed by the

Supreme Court in January 2015, recommended a
complete overhaul of Indian cricket, from the
very top down to the grassroots level and
affecting every stakeholder. Its report, presented
to the court last month, covered every aspect of
the game with special focus on the BCCI's
administrative and governance structures and
the issue of transparency.

aimed at transforming the entire power structure
in the board. It changed the BCCI's electorate to
one association per state - some states have three
- and removed the vote from associations
without territorial definitions (e.g., Railways and
Services).
India newsFebruary 5, 2016
BCCI not shying away from

Lodha report - Thakur
The Supreme Court of India's ruling on Thursday
might have suggested its annoyance with a
perceived lack of seriousness on the BCCI's part
in implementing the Lodha committee
recommendations, but Anurag Thakur, the BCCI
secretary, has insisted the board is following a
due process and not dilly-dallying. The Supreme
Court has given the BCCI a March 3 deadline to
implement the Lodha recommendations or "We
will implement it for you". Thakur didn't say if
the court's view was acceptable to the board, but
maintained the BCCI had not been looking for an
"escape route".
The Supreme Court's latest deadline comes
exactly a month after the Lodha committee made
therecommendations public. The BCCI has, to
date, not spoken about the merits of the report,
or its objections, in public or in court. On
Thursday, the BCCI submitted that its legal
committee was due to meet on February 7, a
response the court didn't like.
"We will take an easy way out," Chief Justice TS

Thakur told the BCCI counsel. "We will ask the
very same committee to implement it. We will
tell them the BCCI has some problems, so please
help them in implementing it. We have seen the
report. When all the members have been
consulted and their views have been taken, what
is the problem?"
The BCCI secretary couldn't say what was wrong

with the report, but said it was justified for the
board to take its time. "We need to understand it
is not a one-page report," Thakur said. "It is a
detailed report, which will have a lot of
consequences on the working and the
functioning of the BCCI. A committee has taken
close to 12 months to come up with it. We are
taking close to two months to discuss, debate,
and after deliberations come to a consensus to
implement that report. We are not slow.
"When the report came, I wrote a letter to all the

state associations to call their meetings. Many
state associations have already held their
managing-committee or working-committee
meetings. They are going to have their special
general meetings before the BCCI's special
general meeting in the third week of February.
So I think it is a due process. We are not slow at
all. We are not shying away. We are not looking
at any escape route."
Thakur did betray mild annoyance at the

committee's recommendations. "We believe in
transparency and accountability," Thakur said.
"And the last nine months we have proved that
the steps taken by BCCI are in the right
direction. Certain changes that we have brought
in have been applauded by everyone. Justice
Lodha has recommended many things. We have
requested the state cricket associations to look
into that. They are the members of the board,
they form the board. So every member has a
right to look into the recommendations and
come up with their suggestions.
"And yes, our legal committee met. We are again

going to meet on the 7th. The special general
meeting has been called in the third week of
February. We have requested the state
associations to come up with their suggestions
and recommendations before that. It is a due
process that we have adopted. And as far as the
details on the recommendations of the Lodha
panel are concerned, during the next hearing in
the Supreme Court we will definitely go and give
our view on that.
"If you look at the 1983 [World Cup] winners we

were unable to give enough money to that team.
Thirty years down the line we have done
something good, which has paid off. We are one
of the best-run boards in the world. It can't be
that everything is wrong in the BCCI. You can't
say that. I think what we have achieved over the
last 30-40 years should also be looked at."
India news February 18, 2016
State associations to weigh in on

Lodha report at SGM
The BCCI's special general meeting in Mumbai
on Friday will discuss the views of its member
associations on the Lodha committee's
recommendations, after the Supreme
Court gave the board a deadline of March 3 to
inform if the recommendations will be
implemented. According to a source, the BCCI
might consider forming a panel to study the
inputs provided by the member units and firm
up a response to the Supreme Court.
While the Delhi & District Cricket Association

[DDCA] has rejected a number of
recommendations, other state associations have
expressed reservations about some aspects of the
report. ESPNcricinfo understands that many
state associations are either opposed to or seek
modifications to the following recommendations:
One state, one vote

The panel's recommendation that only one
association from a state should be given a vote
has, predictably, drawn strong opposition from
the western units, which comprise three
associations each from Gujarat and Maharashtra.
If the recommendation comes into effect, four of
the six associations would be stripped of voting
rights and reduced to the status of an associate
member. All the associations, however, will be
allowed to field teams and will remain eligible for
grants.
ICC Board meetings also likely on the agenda
The BCCI will also hold an emergent meeting of its working committee before
the SGM. The Lodha Committee's recommendations are expected to be the
key theme in this meeting as well. A discussion on the recent ICC Board and
committee meetings, which reviewed the world body's constitution and
governance structures, is also expected to take place in the SGM, although
the primary focus is expected to be on the Lodha report.
"State boundaries shouldn't be confused with

cricketing boundaries," a president of one of the
associations said. "How can you take away the
legacy and contributions of many of these
associations which have been in existence from
even before independence?" The western
associations are understood to have already
conveyed their objections to this
recommendation to the BCCI.
Bringing BCCI under the RTI ambit

The proposal to bring the board under the
purview of the Right to Information Act has been
met with near-unanimous opposition from the
BCCI's units. The implementation of this
recommendation would require the BCCI to
make public details of its activities.
While a board official pointed out that the issue

of the BCCI being amenable to the RTI is sub
judice, another said it was a blow to its
autonomy. "The BCCI generates its own funds
and so it can't be compared to other sports
bodies," the official said. "When you bring the
BCCI under the ambit of the RTI some of the
questions that we would eventually end up
getting are about why 'A' wasn't selected and why
'B' was. How can we disclose aspects of selection
in public?"
Age limit and cooling-off period

The Lodha report disqualifies a person over the
age of 70 from holding office or contesting
elections in the BCCI. The panel also
recommended that an office-bearer should not
serve two consecutive terms - each must be
broken by a "cooling-off" period. The first
recommendation would make it untenable for
the likes of Sharad Pawar, N Srinivasan and
Niranjan Shah to continue as heads of their
respective state bodies. "When the Indian
political system doesn't prescribe any age-limit
for those who can contest elections why target
the BCCI alone?" a board official asked. Another
official said that a cooling-off period would
hamper continuity in administration.
No ministers or bureaucrats as office

bearers
This recommendation, according to a few
officials, would add to the difficulties of
administering state associations. "It is not right
to paint all politicians with the same brush," the
president of a state association said. He said that
the presence of a minister or a bureaucrat helped
overcome administrative roadblocks. "When you
try to organise a match, there are many issues to
handle that involve the police, corporation,
commercial taxes and other aspects of state
machinery," he said. "You need somebody to
shield you, and also a politician or a bureacrat's
administrative abilities cannot be discounted."
No ad breaks between overs

Although this recommendation isn't a direct
challenge to any of the state associations many
officials have raised concerns over the
consequent shrinking of revenue to the board.
An official said that if the revenue earned from
the sale of broadcast rights falls it would have a
direct impact on the state associations. "The
BCCI has managed to create state-of-the-art
facilities in many places with the revenue earned
from TV rights," the official said. "This would
slow down all work related to infrastructure
development."
The Lodha committee report March 2, 2016
Supreme Court to hear BCCI's

views on Lodha
recommendations
ARUN VENUGOPAL
On Thursday, the two-member bench of the Supreme Court

comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah
will hear the BCCI's affidavit regarding the Lodha
recommendations
The Supreme Court had on February
4 asked the BCCI to let it know by March 3
if it would accept the recommendations
made by the Lodha committee in January.
The committee, appointed by the Supreme
Court in January 2015, made several
sweeping recommendations that aim to
overhaul Indian cricket, with special focus
on the BCCI's administrative and
governance structures. The court had said
it would have the committee implement
the recommendations if the BCCI found it
difficult to do so.
What is due to happen on Thursday?
The two-member bench of the Supreme Court

comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice
Ibrahim Kalifullah will hear the BCCI's affidavit.
What is the BCCI's affidavit likely to say?
It is understood that the BCCI's affidavit is "fairly

elaborate" in nature, as it seeks to impress upon
the Supreme Court the "anomalies" in the Lodha
committee's recommendations and the problems
in implementing them. Although the BCCI has
said it has partially accepted the
recommendations and put in place mechanisms
to address conflict of interest by appointing an
Ombudsman, it is learnt that the board is
opposed to most of the recommendations.
Some of the recommendations the BCCI is

opposed to include doing away with ad breaks
between overs in Tests and ODIs, limiting the
tenure of office bearers to 70 years, barring
politicians and bureaucrats to be part of the
BCCI in state associations, and a tenure of a
maximum of three terms of nine years each
across positions.
Who are the other parties that have filed

objections?
Many state associations - including the Mumbai

Cricket Association, the Tamil Nadu Cricket
Association, the Karnataka State Cricket
Association and Punjab Cricket Association -
have filed detailed objections to several
recommendations. According to reports, former
India allrounder Chandu Borde has also
recorded his objections, especially against the
one-state-one-vote recommendation and the
age-cap on office bearers.
What is the court likely to do in response?
A BCCI source said it was hard to second guess

what the Supreme Court was thinking, but said
there were quite a few likely outcomes. "Any
number of things can happen. One, they can
simply pass an order asking us to implement the
recommendations in toto," the source said. "Two,
they [the Supreme Court bench] might take stock
of the fact that many state associations have
raised objections and agree to look into them in
greater detail and defer the hearing for later.
Three, they can ask us to go back to Lodha and
run the objections by them, and adjourn the
matter by a few months."
How much closer does this take us to

closure?
The time-frame will depend on a few factors;
should the Supreme Court make it binding upon
the BCCI to implement all the recommendations,
the board might have only limited time and
practically no elbow room in effecting the
revamp. If the judges decide to defer the hearing
the, wait could be longer.
India newsMarch 2, 2016
BCCI counter-affidavit details

reservations on Lodha report
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
The BCCI has expressed strong reservations

against the exhaustive
recommendations proposed by the Lodha
committee and the Indian board will present its
views before the Supreme Court during a hearing
on Thursday. In a 55-page counter-affidavit
submitted in the court on March 1, the BCCI
stated that it partially accepted some of the
reforms, but had concerns on many of the
recommendations presented by the Lodha panel
on January 4.
In the previous hearing on the matter, held on

February 4, the two-judge bench of Chief Justice
TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah had
asked the BCCI to let the court know by March 3
if it would implement the recommendations.
Justice Thakur also told the BCCI counsel: "If
you have any difficulty in implementing it we will
have the Lodha committee implement it for you."
The BCCI in its affidavit has stated that it has

already implemented some of the
recommendations such as appointing an
ombudsman, putting in place rules on conflict
of interest, and releasing advertisements to
appoint a chief executive officer, a chief financial
officer and other top management positions.
At the same time, the BCCI has listed more than

a handful of recommendations that it does not
agree with. Ever since the Lodha report became
public, the BCCI and its units - the state
associations - have been trying to figure
out their response to the report.
BCCI office-bearers and most of the major state

associations, some of whom have filed their own
counter-affidavits separately, have taken strong
exception to recommendations like 'one state
one vote', an age cap of 70 years for an office-
bearer or a board official, and a limit on the
tenure for an office bearer to a maximum of
three terms of nine years each across positions.
The other major recommendation that the BCCI

is staunchly opposing is the limiting of
advertisements during Tests and ODIs. The
Lodha committee had pointed out that the
broadcaster, in an attempt to maximise
revenues, inserted ads at "crucial" parts of a
match telecast, causing a disruption to the
viewer.
The report stated: "Commerce has also overtaken
the enjoyment of the sport, with advertisements
continuing many a time, even after the first ball
and again commencing even before the last ball
of the over is played, thereby interrupting the full
and proper broadcast of the game.
"It is recommended that all existing contracts for

international Test & One-Day matches be revised
and new ones ensure that only breaks taken by
both teams for drinks, lunch and tea will permit
the broadcast to be interrupted with
advertisements, as is the practice internationally.
Also, the entire space of the screen during the
broadcast will be dedicated to the display of the
game, save for a small sponsor logo or sign."
The BCCI, however, has said that if it failed to

display advertisements between overs, it would
suffer a "major revenue hit" and consequently
the board would not be in a position to conduct
any cricketing events as the value of the
broadcasting contracts would be significantly
devalued.
The BCCI has also pointed out in its affidavit that

it is against the recommendation where a
nominee picked by a member of the Comptroller
& Auditor General of India will be appointed on
the proposed, and powerful, apex council. The
Lodha committee had proposed a nine-member
apex council to replace the existing working
committee and look after the governance of the
BCCI.
The BCCI is also against the proposal of having
two representatives of IPL franchises on the
governing gouncil. The board said that it cannot
have franchises on the IPL governing council
because it is an "inherent conflict of interest."
Despite its reservations about the Lodha

committee recommendations, the BCCI has
made sure that the contents of the affidavit
remained privy only to the top brass: board
president Shashank Manohar; secretary Anurag
Thakur (the signatory); Ratnakar Shetty (general
manager, game development), PS Raman (legal
committee chairman) and KK Venugopal, who
would be representing the board in the court on
Thursday.
India news March 3, 2016
Supreme Court takes exception

to BCCI's views on Lodha report
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
India's Supreme Court has told the BCCI that it

might be inclined to send a few of the
recommendations proposed by the Lodha
committee back to the three-member panel for
review. The two-judge bench, comprising Chief
Justice TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim
Kalifullah, did not, specify, however, which
recommendations it could ask the committee to
review.
The court made this observation on Thursday
afternoon after hearing the arguments presented
by BCCI counsel, KK Venugopal, who said that
majority of the recommendations made by the
Lodha committee ought to be reconsidered. The
court set March 18 as the next date of hearing
and has asked the BCCI and state associations to
submit audited accounts of the expenses over the
past five years through separate affidavits.
As reported on Tuesday, the BCCI

had expressed its reservations about the
recommendations of the report. In an exhaustive
affidavit, a copy of which was accessed by
ESPNcricinfo, the BCCI listed it was against the
following major recommendations proposed by
the Lodha committee: one state one vote; drastic
reduction on advertisements; inclusion of
Comptroller & Auditor General of India's
nominee on managing committee and apex
council; representatives of two franchises on the
IPL governing council; prohibition on re-
appointment for members of managing
committee and cooling-off period; prohibition on
association of ministers/government
servants/persons holding posts in another sports
body in honorary capacity; restriction of
simultaneously holding office in a state
association and the BCCI; age cap of 70 years for
an office bearer; formation of players' association
funded by the BCCI; doing away with existing
BCCI committees; bringing the board under the
Right To Information Act; and legalising betting.
BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur, who signed the
affidavit, said that although the Lodha panel had
sent the board office bearers an exhaustive
questionnaire, it had not consulted the top brass
while finalising the recommendations. "During
my interaction with the Lodha committee, the
committee did not seek my views on the
proposed recommendations which ultimately
find place in the [Lodha] report," Thakur wrote.
Chief Justice Thakur, however, was unimpressed

by that statement. "It was international news
that we had formed the Justice Lodha committee
to suggest reforms in cricket. The whole world
knew it. Now you come to us and say the
recommendations were a bolt from the blue for
you and you were not consulted... What were you
doing? Waiting at the fence for a written
invitation?" the Chief Justice told the BCCI's
legal counsel, according to the Hindu.
On the one-state-one-vote recommendation, the
BCCI feared that some states could easily "abuse"
their vote, which would encourage corruption.
"For instance, the one-country-one-vote system
followed by FIFA has resulted in the 2015 FIFA
corruption scandal where countries where there
is little or no football activity were allegedly
bribed by FIFA officials to vote in a particular
manner." To this the bench said: "If this is the
first scandal in 50 or 100 years, it is hardly a test
on the workability of the policy."
When Venugopal argued that it would disrupt

the voting process practised for decades by the
BCCI, the court suggested that the state
associations should vote by rotation.
The BCCI also argued strongly against the
presence of a nominee from the CAG's office on
the proposed apex council, saying it was
"contrary to law", since the BCCI constitution
does not allow a non-member to sit on the
managing committee of the society.
Venugopal also said that the ICC rules did not

allow government representatives to be part of
the Full Member boards and the global body may
take the appointment of a CAG representative as
government interference and, hence, derecognise
the BCCI.
The BCCI counsel said the board would accept a

CAG nominee in an advisory role without any
voting rights. The court, however, did not relent.
"You don't even want the CAG nominee on the
outside as your conscience keeper?" Chief Justice
Thakur said. "Suppose we ask you to put this
nominee on the board, you fear that the ICC will
disenfranchise you for complying with an order
of the Supreme Court of India to have a person
who gives you good advice... surely you don't
grudge good advice, do you?"
The BCCI also disagreed with the

recommendation to restrict advertisements
during a match telecast to drinks and session
breaks, instead of advertisements between overs
and at the fall of the wicket. The BCCI said such a
move would "cripple" its income as the
broadcasters would pay a "fraction" of the sum
being paid for ODIs while paying nothing for a
Test match.
According to Anurag Thakur, Star India, the host
broadcaster, had apparently sent an e-mail to the
BCCI on February 21, seeking "renegotiation of
the amounts currently payable by them under
the existing contract if advertisements are
restricted as recommended."
When Venugopal read out figures accrued as

profits from broadcasting revenues that were
later disbursed to state associations, the court
asked the BCCI and the state associations to file
individual accounts for the past five years. "The
prominent spirit should be viewer enjoyment. Do
you mean that your commerce should overtake
the enjoyment of the game?" Chief Justice
Thakur asked.
In addition to the BCCI, various state units -

Mumbai Cricket Association, Maharashtra
Cricket Association, Tamil Nadu Cricket
Association, Baroda Cricket Association - filed
their individual presentations objecting to the
Lodha committee report.
When prominent lawyer Kapil Sibal,

representing the Baroda association, said that his
client would want approach the Lodha
committee directly to suggest "certain
amendments", Chief Justice Thakur brushed the
suggestion aside.
"There is no question of you wanting it. We, the

Supreme Court, will decide whether we are
inclined to send some restricted issues back to
the committee for its decision, that too within a
limited span of time... Lodha Committee costs a
lot of money for BCCI. It is not an easy
committee," the Chief Justice said.
India news April 8, 2016
Supreme Court asks BCCI: Are

you refusing to be reformed?
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
Continuing arguments over the Lodha

Committee report on Friday, the BCCI said that
because of its status as a trust it was beyond the
purview of the Supreme Court. The court
responded by asking the BCCI whether it was
"refusing to be reformed" and adjourned the
matter to Monday
A three-man panel led by Justice RM Lodha had

recommended several changes to the BCCI's
functioning, but the board has been reluctant to
implement some of them. The BCCI's senior
counsel, KK Venugopal, told the bench,
Ibrahim Kalifulla, that the board was registered
under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act
and also reportedly cited Article 19 (C) of the
Constitution of India, which allows for the
formation of associations or unions, as one of the
reasons the court could not interfere in the
BCCI's functioning.
"This is a private body and can arrange its
matters in whatever way it wants," Venugopal
told the court, according to the Hindu.
Regarding the suggestion of "one state, one vote"

and the recent critique against how the BCCI
disbursed its funds to the state associations,
Venugopal said, "Memberships are part of
internal management. In case of complaints,
approach the Registrar, Co-operative Societies or
the police station or the court. There has been no
instance of malfeasance to trigger interference
which will change the very character and
functioning of the Board."
During his submission, Venugopal also cited the

Zee Telefilms judgement of 2005. In response to
a writ petition by Zee Telefilms against the BCCI
over the cancellation of telecast rights, a five-
judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that
the Indian cricket board was not a "state" as
defined by Article 12 of the Constitution, and no
fundamental rights can be invoked against it. At
the time, however, the court had also ruled that
the BCCI was a private body carrying out a public
function and, therefore, could be taken to court
for violation of a statutory court. According to
this judgement, Venugopal said on Friday, the
Supreme court could only examine the BCCI's
public function, which does not include its
character or composition.
Chief Justice Thakur had a pointed question for

Venugopal: "Every single penny you hold in trust
is for the benefit of the game and for those who
play and for the millions of cricket lovers who
pay you to watch the game... Are you not
accountable to them? Are you refusing to be
reformed?"
Chief Justice Thakur had more rhetorical

questions for the BCCI counsel. "[From] what we
understand is that you are suggesting that I am
answerable to Registrar of Societies. I will be
accountable only to Registrar of the Society. I
will be amenable to criminal law but I will not
reform. Don't ask me to reform. Is it possible?
What have you done? We have seen the
allegations of match-fixing and betting. You have
no control over these. But you give money in
crores. The Lodha committee has said
something. It has been said to make the
functioning more transparent and visible and the
effort is to reform the BCCI."
The bench asked Venugopal, "When you collect

thousands of crores of rupees, are you saying
that we cannot question you as to how you spend
the same?" The BCCI counsel nodded. "With
respect, yes."
Venugopal said that broadcasting revenue

accrued from selling media rights was the main
source of income for the BCCI. He then argued
that the court cannot say how the BCCI must run
its business, but it can definitely look into
allegations of malfeasance and misconduct. The
court asked the BCCI: "The money that you have
is in your trust. Are you not accountable to the
beneficiaries? It is for the benefit of the people
who watch matches. Are you not accountable to
them?"
"We are accountable to the statutory bodies, the
regulatory bodies like the Registrar of Societies
or the Criminal Law," Venugopal said. He told
the bench that the BCCI was carrying out reform
in a stage-by-stage basis.
Lodha report won't intrude on

your operations, SC tells CCI
Mumbai's Cricket Club of India (CCI), one of the
founder members of the BCCI, faced tough
questions from the Supreme Court on Monday
over its resistance to structural reforms
recommended by the Lodha panel. The court
reiterated that the purpose of reforms was to
make the BCCI more transparent and objective,
and stressed it would take care to ensure the
recommendations do not violate any
fundamental rights laid down by the
Constitution of India. The next hearing will be
held on April 13.
The CCI has opposed the Lodha panel's 'one

state, one vote' recommendation on the grounds
that it will alter and dilute the club's various
rights, including the right to vote, and affect its
status as a full member that it has enjoyed since
the inception of BCCI. However, the two-judge
bench, comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and
Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla, was not convinced the
recommendation would violate the fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the
Constitution, which gives the right to form an
association.
"If the Lodha committee recommendation is

accepted, it is not violating your rights under 19
(1)(c). You can say my right to associate with the
BCCI to vote is affected but you are a company
and not a citizen and that certain rights are only
guaranteed to citizens and not to the company,"
the court said, according to a PTI report. "The
plain reading of Article 19 1(c) does not allow you
the protection.
"The first question is, are you a citizen? If you are
not, your right is not violated. 19(1)(c) will come
if Lodha Committee changes the character of the
company. In BCCI you are there only as
individual members to vote. Members in the
BCCI are not individuals but all associations.
"Also keep in mind, what is the purpose of the

guidelines recommended by the committee. The
purpose is to clean the system, to make the BCCI
more transparent, open, objective, and to make it
more accountable and more responsive and
representative.
"If the structural changes in the BCCI, as

recommended, are accepted, there will be far
more openness and it will bring more
transparency.
"On principle, you have to accept that the

purpose of the whole exercise starting from the
judgement delivered (in January 2015) was
meant to achieve a very laudable and deserving
result to make BCCI a transparent, open,
credible, objective and responsive body to inspire
[a] confident and credible system, and to achieve
that objective we will be very careful that the
recommendations are not violative of
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)
(c)."
The bench asked CCI counsel, Shyam Divan,

whether the club, after an objective assessment
of the recommendations, could give a reason for
why it should have a right to vote.
"Territory is big and more important than to say

why it can't have the right to vote," the bench
said, adding that the purpose of the exercise was
"to streamline, for which it is necessary to
remove undeserving rights enjoyed by certain
persons."
"If we have to go by you, it appears that the

continuance of BCCI is beyond repair.
"Even if you consider the BCCI a private entity, it

conducts a public function and Lodha committee
has examined what changes are required and
what actually in it can inspire confidence."
The bench also questioned the CCI counsel on

the club's finances: "Why are you not receiving
any money from the BCCI for promoting the
game? What is your income for five years? Do
you have the balance sheet to show how the
other activities are carried out? We will have an
idea why you are not getting financial support
from the BCCI."
The court added: "It is very rare to find that you
go on with cricket activity and you need no
support of finance."
The court also clarified that the 'one state, one

vote' recommendation did not interfere with the
management of the CCI, as the report had stated
that in case a state had more than one
association, those without a vote could be
associate members.
"[The] Lodha committee is not interfering with

your right to management. You can carry out
your activities whether it is a table tennis match
or badminton tournament," the court observed.
"You can also have your bar running. There is no
interference."
Can't government carry out

BCCI's public functions, asks
Supreme Court
Persistent opposition from the BCCI and its
member associations to the recommendations
made by the Lodha committee have provoked the
Supreme Court to observe that public functions
relating to cricket can be taken over by the
government, with the enactment of a law in
parliament.
"Why can't the public function of BCCI be taken

up by parliament?" the two-judge bench,
Ibrahim Kalifulla, asked. "The question is if the
activity of organising cricket matches, sending
and picking up national team, can be taken up by
the parliament.
"Suppose a law by which the Indian team can be

selected by Indian parliament."
The remarks from the bench came after senior

advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Baroda
Cricket Association (BCA), raised opposition to
the "one state, one vote" recommendation made
by the Lodha panel.
Sibal said there is no restriction on the state to

take over activities of the game but it will require
a change in the bylaws. He was also of the view
that it may not be favourable for parliament to
take over the cricketing body.
The same issue was also raised by the bench

when the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA)
made its submission against the
recommendation of the "one state, one vote"
policy.
The senior advocate representing the MCA also

responded to a query from the bench on the
recommendation by the Lodha panel to prohibit
ministers and government officials from
becoming cricket administrators.
The MCA, headed by Sharad Pawar, favoured the

involvement of politicians in sporting bodies,
saying their presence helped the associations get
work done for big sporting events, which require
security arrangements from police.
"That is the reality," the MCA's advocate said, in

response to the bench's specific query: "Can we
only have politicians as advisors? Shouldn't the
system also function without any politician?"
Sibal also faced some sharp questions from the

bench about lack of initiative by BCCI on the
development of the game in northeastern states
like Manipur and Mizoram, as also about the
discrimination in allocation of funds to cricket
associations of states like Bihar.
The case's next hearing is scheduled for April 18.
BCCI 'running a prohibitory

regime' - Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India on Monday pulled
up the BCCI for "monopolising" cricket in the
country and said several youngsters wanting to
be Dhonis and Kohlis were not given equal
opportunity if they were not on the right side of
the cricket body.
"Several youngsters in the country want to make

their career in cricket and want to be Dhonis and
Kohlis due to the glamour and glitz associated
with it," a bench headed by Chief Justice TS
Thakur said. "They do not get equal opportunity
if they are not on the right side of the BCCI.
Sometimes they are prevented by the people at
the helm of affairs."
The apex court also appointed senior advocate

Gopal Subramanium as amicus curiae in the
matter and sought his assistance to explore how
the recomendations of the Justice RM Lodha
committee, favouring large-scale structural
reforms that the BCCI has been resisting,
could be implemented.
The bench, also comprising Justice Ibrahim

Kalifulla, expressed anguish over the cricket
body running a "prohibitory regime and
monopolizing cricket" across the country, saying
no one can play the game without its nod. "You
(BCCI) are running a prohibitory regime which is
spread across the country," the bench said. "If a
player has to play cricket he has to be with you.
You have complete monopoly. You have
monopoly over members and you prevent people
from becoming members."
Senior advocate Arvind Dattar, appearing for the

Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, said the
recommendation of one state-one vote will create
inequality rather than equality. "The
recomendation will create inequality rather than
equality. It will promote inquality among
equals," he said.
The bench then asked why the formula cannot

work for the BCCI, when one country,
irrespective of its population, constitutes one
vote at the ICC. "When ICC accepts the principle
of one country-one vote irrespective of
population, then why can't the similar formula of
one state-one vote work for BCCI. It will result in
equality to play cricket," the bench said.
It further said the apex court had already held

that if any body or association was discharging a
public function, then it has responsiblities and
obligations including giving equal opportunity to
all.
The bench also pulled up the Baroda Cricket

Association (BCA), which has opposed the
reforms recommended by the Lodha panel,
saying any cricketing body associated with the
BCCI will have to reform itself. "If any cricket
club or association wants to do anything, we are
least bothered. We are not here to reform every
cricketing club. But if any institution which is
discharging public duty like BCCI, then any
organization or association associated with it will
have to reform itself," the court said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the

BCA, said reforms suggested by the Lodha panel
were not under constitutional principle and may
or may not be implemented by the BCCI, but
state associations, which have their own set of
rules, cannot implement them.
"Every association has its own set of rules and

by-laws which can't be changed. Do we all who
constitute BCCI have to change our laws, it can't
be," Sibal said, adding that if the cricket board
does something wrong, it could be held
accountable but not the associations.
He said there cannot be uniform rules and
regulations as there may be problems in
following them owing to different members
having different compositions, laws and by-laws.
Sibal said the BCCI selection committee consists
of five members from five zones and they select
players from different zones without any
favouritism. "Even in present structure in BCCI,
equal representation is given to all the zones.
There is nothing like undue or undemocratic
(favour)," he said.
Supreme Court firm on age cap

of 70 for BCCI administrators
The Supreme Court has pulled up the BCCI for
resisting the Lodha committee recommendation
to cap the age of office bearers at 70.
To strengthen its argument, the two-judge bench

comprising Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and
justice Ibrahim Kalifullah cited the example of
Jagmohan Dalmiya, who the court said could not
communicate properly while he was BCCI
president from March 2015 until his death in
September at the age of 75.
"Why do you want to hold on to the reign for

such a long time. Even the Supreme Court judges
retire at 65," Thakur was quoted by
theTelegraph as saying to Arvind Datar, senior
legal counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu
Cricket Association (TNCA). "You have been
given five more years. You had a president who
could not speak, could not communicate. Those
who elected him did not see whom they were
electing? These days, even in politics people are
retiring."
The court also rejected the proposal put forth by
the Odisha Cricket Association, which suggested
older administrators could be asked to take
medical tests instead of enforcing the 70-year
age cap. "You are trying to suggest that one
should take tablets for headache. But the
problem is that the disease here is deep-rooted,"
Thakur told KV Vishwanathan, the OCA lawyer,
according the Telegraph. "The [Lodha]
committee was formed to find a solution.
Otherwise diseases like match-fixing and all
could continue. It is a disease that can't be cured
by medicine.
"It needs surgery. Lodha committee was
competent and committed to perform the
surgery. But mistakes can be made by anyone,
especially when we go by perceptions. If a society
wants to run itself in a healthy manner, the
person running the show should be healthy and
preferably less than 70. After a certain age they
(persons who are above 70) must retire and do
something else. They cannot head a society
managing sports. For healthy management, they
must quit at a certain point. The reforms are
meant to make the management more
responsive to the needs of the game."
Datar said the court could not restrict the rights

of state associations, which enjoy their
fundamental right to carry out activities as
provided under Article 19 (1) (c) of the
Constitution. The court responded by asking
Datar which of the recommendations were
"perverse and un-implementable".
"All of you agreed that the recommendations are

good, well-meaning and made in good faith.
What is the harm in implementing them? If the
recommendations are not outrageous, then let
them be implemented. Our directions for the
implementation of reforms in the BCCI will
remain in force till Parliament enacts a
legislation. We will say so in our judgment," the
court told Datar, according to the Times of
India
Datar argued that the Lodha panel had been
formed to look into allegations of spot-fixing, but
it had gone on to recommend structural reforms.
"This is like a doctor detecting a tumour in a
body and then, while removing it, slashing and
bruising the entire body," Datar said. The court
responded with, "spot-fixing and betting were
only symptoms of a dreaded disease deep inside
the BCCI. That is why the Lodha panel was set up
to diagnose the disease and suggest remedial
measures. It has now suggested remedial
measures."
When Vishwanathan said bringing in weaker

teams due to the "territorial classification" based
on the one-state-one-vote recommendation
would result in a weaker domestic completion,
the court disagreed. "What is your problem,
weaker teams will get beaten? You don't want to
play against Nagaland or Sikkim? You don't want
to waste your time. People used to laugh when
Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan started
playing. But look at the turnaround in these
teams. Just see what is Bangladesh doing,"
the PTI reported.
India news May 2, 2016
State associations will have to

fall in line with Lodha reforms -
Supreme Court
India's Supreme Court, on Monday, made it clear
that all state cricket associations will have to "fall
in line" with the recommendations of Justice RM
Lodha led-panel on structural reforms in the
BCCI. The court had tasked a three-member
committee with recommending changes to the
BCCI's constitution and manner of functioning
in the wake of match-fixing and spot-fixing
scandal that occurred in IPL 2013. The
panel presented its report in January this
year.
"Once the BCCI is reformed it will go down the

line and all cricket associations will have to
reform themselves if they want to associate with
it. The committee constituted in the wake of
match-fixing and spot-fixing allegations was a
serious exercise and not a futile exercise," a two-
judge bench, headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur,
said.
The bench said that recommendations of reforms

in the BCCI were made by a committee of experts
after extensive deliberations with stakeholders,
and the findings could not be defined as "just
recommendations". The court's statement was in
response to the Haryana Cricket Association's
argument that the Lodha panel's findings were
only recommendations and a few of them were
not feasible for cricket bodies to implement.
"It will no longer remain just recommendations

if we say it has to be implemented," the court
said. "It was called recommendations as some of
the findings of the committee were implemented
by the BCCI during the deliberations itself and
some were not implemented.
"We are hearing the issue because we are seeing

whether the recommendations which have not
been implemented can be implemented or not.
[The] Justice RM Lodha committee has said that
what has been done is just cosmetic and what is
required is not cosmetic reforms but more than
that."
The apex court also pulled up the Haryana

association for objecting to the recommendation
of an age cap of 70 years for office bearers, and
asked whether "some office bearers in cricket
bodies think they are indispensable".
"Do you think that some office bearers in cricket

bodies think they are indispensable? Nobody is
indispensable, leave alone the cricket
administrators," the bench said. "There should
be time when you have to say enough is enough,
and pave the way for others to take charge."
Responding to objections raised by the

Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) on
the inclusion of a nominee of the Comptroller
and Auditor General (CAG) on the cricket board,
the apex court said that the law could be
amended to pave the way for reforms.
"[The] Justice RM Lodha committee has said

that laws could be amended for inclusion of a
nominee from CAG in governing bodies. The law
doesn't say that the governing body should only
comprise members," the bench said.
Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh,

representing the Railways Sports Promotion
Board and the Services Sports Control Board,
opposed the Lodha panel's recommendation to
downgrade the bodies to associate members of
the BCCI and take away their voting rights. The
bench asked the ASG to give two reasons that
justified their claim on voting rights.
"Not allowing us a right to vote is just like

ousting us from the decision-making process
despite meeting all the required rational
parameters which are applied to the states given
the right to vote," ASG Singh said. He added that
that both Railways and the Services boards had a
presence across India.
The court had earlier pulled up the BCCI for

"monopolizing" cricket in the country and had
said several youngsters wanting to be Dhonis
and Kohlis were not given equal opportunity if
they were not on the right side of the cricket
body.
The court had appointed senior advocate Gopal

Subramanium as amicus curiae and sought his
assistance to explore how the recommendations
of Lodha committee could be implemented.
Subramanium will present his views before the
court on Tuesday, May 3.
India news May 30, 2016
Want BCCI to become more

system-driven - Shirke
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke talks about his goal to make the board
more transparent and explains why he supported the Lodha
panel's recommendation to legalise betting
Last week, Maharashtra Cricket

Association president Ajay Shirke was
nominated to the post of BCCI secretary
by newly elected board president Anurag
Thakur. Shirke had served as the board's
treasurer in 2012-13, before he resigned
to protest the BCCI's handling of the IPL
2013 corruption scandal. Shirke agrees he
is an aberration in the BCCI's secretive
system but believes in creating an
accountable structure. In an interview with
ESPNcricinfo on the eve of the IPL 2016
final, he outlined his vision to make the
board's functioning more transparent.
You have been BCCI treasurer. You are

well-entrenched in the board's working,
but it must be a difficult time to take over
as board secretary?
What is difficult? The BCCI has been delivering
its primary product efficiently despite all the so-
called inefficiencies, court cases, scams. The
BCCI has still delivered cricket. In all these 20
months of heightened controversy not a single
match has been affected, not a single domestic
tournament has been affected, no cricketer has
suffered by want of non-payment, three board
elections have happened smoothly, a World
Twenty20 was organised, the IPL just concluded.
So the perception of the board being at an all-
time low does not, in my opinion, truly represent
the abilities and qualities of the BCCI. By no
stretch of imagination should you interpret this
as me saying the BCCI has no issues or problems.
We have [problems] and we are aware of that.
You have been openly reluctant to return

to the BCCI. Why then did you decide to
come back?
A week ago I did not think that I would be the
BCCI secretary (laughs). There were certain
people, including the BCCI president [Thakur]
and Shashank Manohar, who said I should come
back and contribute to the board. Manohar has
been my old friend. I know him through his
father. We all are cut from the same cloth. He
has been an upright and forthright administrator
and I would like to follow him in his footsteps.
How much has the BCCI administration

changed in the years you have been
involved in cricket?
It has undergone quite a lot of change. The BCCI
is an increasingly complex organisation. Look at
what the BCCI does as a cricketing body
objectively. We do not take public funding. The
game that we administer, we may not be No. 1
but we are a respected team across formats. We
have been successful at unearthing and
delivering young, fresh talent year after year. We
have one of the largest infrastructure anywhere
in the world, from state to district level. So [there
is a big gap in] the perception of what the board
is and what the board actually is.
We, the BCCI, don't have any powers. We can only counsel and educate. We
don't have any policing powers. So legalising betting is one of the biggest
recommendations of the Lodha Committee.
You have always been a forward-thinking

administrator. An example of that is the
infrastructure and systems you created at
MCA. What kind of model for growth do
you have in mind now as board secretary?
The ambition or a goal that I have set for the
BCCI is for the board to become more process
and system-driven. That is also the aim of the
BCCI president. The very first thing he
announced was the board would like to appoint a
coach by advertising for the job. We are working
on criteria for selection now. We would not like
the board members to go to the micro decision-
making. All of this would be referred to a cricket
advisory system, which would comprise cricket
experts. They can advise us. So the whole process
and decision-making is actually transparent, not
just talked about of being transparent.
You have never believed in ad-hoc

decisions, which sits in complete contrast
to the way things have moved at BCCI.
Will you adapt or will you make the
members adapt?
I have just taken over. I come from a position
where I don't know anything. I am starting from
the scratch. I have gone through the daily
attendance registers of everybody who comes to
the BCCI office. I have just met umpires in the
last few days and will be meeting more. I have
met the handicap cricket association, I have met
officials from women's cricket. We want to build
up systems [of accountability] from the bottom
to the top. I am not defending the board in any
way, but when I scrutinise the structure the
BCCI, it has some excellent systems.
Improvement is a course correction.
Referring to the Lodha committee

recommendations, you said one cannot
reinvent the wheel. What are the key
areas you feel within the BCCI structure
and way of functioning that need
reforms?
Every process of decision-making, any policy we
finalise, has to be arrived by due deliberation. All
the cricket-driven processes should be advised to
us by a very empowered and holistic group of
cricketers. Let us say we will get 100 applications
for the coach's positions. It is not my intention to
do that for ticking a box - that we advertise, but
we have appointed you because we have already
decided. As office bearers we should not be
involved in deciding these things. All this should
be covered in the vision document, which I
expect the president to come up with shortly,
where he sees the BCCI in the short to long term.
Did the Lodha committee meet you?

Yes, they called me. I was with them for a whole
day. I strongly supported their recommendation
on legalising betting and even provided them
supporting documents. We, the BCCI, don't have
any powers. We can only counsel and educate.
We don't have any policing powers. So legalising
betting is one of the biggest recommendations of
the Lodha committee.
Is this cricket advisory system, as you call

it, different to the cricket advisory
committee appointed last year comprising
Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and
VVS Laxman?
This cricket advisory will eventually form into a
committee. It is early to commit on who all will
sit on this committee. It would certainly be made
up of reputed cricketers and will not be ad-hoc. It
would serve a long-term role and would be a
professional committee. This panel will study
and offer views on everything cricket in India at
all levels - appointment of coaches, umpires,
development of cricket, what do we do with the
NCA, how we modernise the cricketing
infrastructure. Those experts have to contribute
on all these and many more cricketing issues.
We, the BCCI members, have to merely sit as
board of directors, and accept the suggestions of
these experts. Our job is to implement.
Can you talk about whether a decision has

been taken to conduct a tournament on
the lines of a mini-IPL?
I am not aware of any such decision having been
officially taken. I am not saying that it may or
may not [happen], but there may be many issues
to be looked into before such a decision can be
taken. Availability of players, contract
obligations with the broadcaster has to be
considered first.
Nagraj Gollapudi is a senior assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo
India news June 29, 2016
Supreme Court signs off on

Lodha proposals
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI AND RACHNA SHETTY
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of implementing a majority of

the Lodha proposals, setting in motion a major revamp of the way
cricket is run in India
On Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court

passed its final order on the case involving the
BCCI and its implementation of the Lodha
Committee's recommendations.
The Court had appointed the committee in

January 2015 to look into the functioning of the
Indian board and suggest changes to its
constitution.
On January 4, 2016, RM Lodha, the former Chief

Justice of India, unveiled the three-man
committee's recommendations, which shook the
hierarchy of BCCI and its member associations.
Consequently, the BCCI and various state
associations approached the Supreme Court
raising objections to the recommendations.
The final order of the two-judge bench
comprising TS Thakur, the Chief Justice of India,
and Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla, signed off on most
of the Lodha proposals, setting in motion a
major revamp of the way cricket is run in India.
The following is a summary of the case from the

time the committee was appointed.
Apr 14, 2015 - 82 questions for BCCI
The Lodha panel sends an 82-

point questionnaire to the BCCI to understand
how it functions and how it runs cricket in India.
The questions were split into eight sections and

covered an exhaustive set of topics from the role
of the BCCI's stakeholders to the board's election
processes, the basis and formation of its various
committees, player welfare, conflict of interest
and transparency in the IPL's functioning.
Jan 4, 2016 - Sweeping reforms unveiled
The Lodha committee recommends a complete

overhaul of Indian cricket - from the very top
down to the grassroots - affecting all its
stakeholders.
With special focus on BCCI's governance and

administrative structures, rather than its
cricketing operations, the most important set of
recommendations aims at transforming the
board's power structure. The committee
recommends one-state-one-vote, suggests clear
and stringent eligibility criteria for the board's
office bearers and sets limits on their tenure in
office. Serving ministers and bureaucrats or
those above 70 years of age are not allowed to
hold positions on the board nor in their state
associations.
Setting up of a players' association
Taking cognizance of the fact India are the only

country to not have a players' body, the Lodha
committee recommends the formation of a
players' association.
A four-member standing committee chaired by

former union home secretary GK Pillai and
comprising former India cricketers Mohinder
Amarnath, Anil Kumble and Diana Edulji, is
appointed to "identify and invite all eligible ex-
cricketers to be members, to open bank accounts,
receive funds from the BCCI, conduct the first
elections for office bearers, communicate the
names of BCCI player nominees to the board."
Jan 7, 2016 - BCCI takes the first steps to

acknowledge Lodha report
Three days after the Lodha committee report

became public, Anurag Thakur, BCCI secretary
at the time, sends an e-mail to all state
associations asking them to study the report,
determine how it affects each of them
individually and submit their findings to the
board by January 31.
Feb 4, 2016 - Supreme Court sets deadline

for BCCI
Having noticed the BCCI and the state
associations delaying their formal response to
the Lodha committee recommendations, the
Supreme Court sets March 3rd as
the deadline for the board to make their stance
clear one way or another. "If you have any
difficulty in implementing it [the reforms] we
will have the Lodha Committee implement it for
you," Justice Thakur tells the BCCI counsel, a
view he repeated several times.
Feb 5, 2016 - BCCI continues to drag its

feet
Without spelling his exact reservations,

Thakur says the board is justified in taking time
to study the Lodha committee's report.
"We need to understand it is not a one-page

report. It is a detailed report, which will have a
lot of consequences on the working and the
functioning of the BCCI. A committee has taken
close to 12 months to come up with it. We are
taking close to two months to discuss, debate,
and after deliberations come to a consensus to
implement that report.
"When the report came, I wrote a letter to all the

state associations to call their meetings. Many
state associations have already held their
managing committee or working committee
meetings. They are going to have their special
general meetings before the BCCI's special
general meeting in the third week of February.
So I think it is a due process. We are not slow at
all. We are not shying away. We are not looking
at any escape route."
Two days later, the BCCI finally calls for an SGM

to discuss the Lodha report
Feb 19, 2016 - BCCI points out 'anomalies'

in Lodha report
More questions than answers arise when BCCI

responds to the Lodha report. Its members cite
"anomalies and difficulties" in implementing
the recommendations. Thakur is asked to file an
affidavit to counter the Lodha report in the
Supreme Court.
Feb 22, 2016 - Mumbai Cricket

Association approaches SC
The state associations prepare to fire salvos

against the Lodha commmittee. Mumbai Cricket
Association, one of the oldest members of the
BCCI, files an intervention stating the one-state-
one-vote recommendation hurts the MCA.
Mar 2, 2016 - BCCI details reservations

against Lodha report
Two days before the Supreme Court deadline, the

BCCI files its affidavit, stating it has
implemented some of the recommendations -
appointing an ombudsman, addressing the issue
of conflict of interest and advertising for a chief
executive officer, a chief financial officer and
other top management positions - but also lists
several it does not agree with - the one-state-
one-vote rule, age cap of 70 years for an office-
bearer or a board official, limits on an office
bearer's and restriction on advertisements
during Tests and ODIs.
Mar 3, 2016 - Court takes exception to

BCCI views
Although the Court says it will ask the Lodha

committee to reconsider some of the suggestions,
itdoes not take pleasantly to the BCCI's
continued reluctance to change.
On Thakur saying he was not consulted before

the recommendations were finalised, the bench
asks: "It was international news that we had
formed the Justice Lodha committee to suggest
reforms in cricket. The whole world knew it. Now
you come to us and say the recommendations
were a bolt from the blue for you and you were
not consulted... What were you doing? Waiting at
the fence for a written invitation?"
Responding to the BCCI counsel's argument that

a cap on advertisements during a match would
"cripple" the board's income, Justice Thakur
asks: "Do you mean that your commerce should
overtake the enjoyment of the game?"
Apr 5, 2016 - Court slams BCCI's method

of disbursing funds
Having asked the BCCI and its state associations

for an audited account of their books over the
last five years and finding disparities in the
distribution of funds between members, the
Courtslams the Indian board. "You function like
'show me the face; I will make the payment...'
[The] impression that one gets is that you are
practically corrupting the persons by not
demanding how the money is spent... [It's] like
the moment you want a vote and their hands will
go up," Justice Thakur says.
Apr 8, 2016 - 'Are you refusing to be

reformed?'
When BCCI counsel KK Venugopal says the

board is beyond the purview of the Supreme
Court since it is a trust, Justice Thakur counters,
"What we understand is that you are suggesting
that 'I am answerable to Registrar of Societies. I
will be accountable only to Registrar of the
Society. I will be amenable to criminal law but I
will not reform. Don't ask me to reform.'
"Is it possible? What have you done? We have

seen the allegations of match-fixing and betting.
You have no control over these. But you give
money in crores. The Lodha committee has said
something. It has been said to make the
functioning more transparent and visible and the
effort is to reform the BCCI."
Apr 19, 2016 - Court rebuffs BCCI take on

one-state-one-vote
When counsel for Baroda Cricket

Association says implementing the one-state-
one-vote recommendation would lead to
"enormous politics" within the board, the bench
disagrees. "You are right. Seven votes will come
to northeast where there is no cricket that we
know [of]. But we don't know the game of seven
votes. Can you elaborate what the politics will
be?"
Apr 26, 2016 - BCCI 'running a

prohibitory regime'
The Court continues to use stern language with

regard to BCCI and its state associations. "You
are running a prohibitory regime, which is
spread across the country," it says. "You have
complete monopoly. If any cricket club or
association wants to do anything, we are least
bothered. We are not here to reform every
cricketing club. But if any institution which is
discharging public duty like BCCI, then any
organisation or association associated with it will
have to reform itself."
Apr 29, 2016 - Court firm on the age cap of

70 for administrators
"Why do you want to hold on to the reign for

such a long time? Even the Supreme Court
judges retire at 65," Thakur tells Arvind Datar,
senior counsel for the Tamil Nadu Cricket
Association (TNCA). "You have been given five
more years. You had a president [the late
Jagmohan Dalmiya] who could not speak, could
not communicate. Those who elected him [in
2015] did not see whom they were electing?
These days, even in politics people are retiring."
Saying the Lodha committee is competent and

can perform the "surgery" to repair Indian
cricket administration, the court tells the counsel
for Odisha Cricket Association: "After a certain
age they [people over 70] must retire and do
something else. They cannot head a society
managing sports."
May 2, 2016 - 'State associations will have

to fall in line with Lodha reforms'
The Court makes it categorically clear that the

BCCI and all of its state associations will have to
implement the Lodha reforms.
"Once the BCCI is reformed it will go down the

line and all cricket associations will have to
reform themselves if they want to associate with
it. The committee constituted in the wake of
match-fixing and spot-fixing allegations was a
serious exercise and not a futile exercise," the
two-judge bench says in response to an
intervention plea filed by the Haryana Cricket
Association stating the Lodha Committee's remit
was to only recommend changes.
May 3, 2016 - 'BCCI constitution incapable

of achieving transparency'
The Court says the BCCI constitution is "highly

incapable of achieving the values of
transparency, objectivity and accountability
[such] that without changing its structure it can't
be done so."
June 30, 2016 - SC decision on Lodha

panel report likely in three weeks
The Supreme Court reserves its judgement in

the case concerning implementation of the
Lodha Committee recommendations by the
BCCI. There is to be no further hearing in the
case and the two-judge bench will submit the
written judgement to the concerned parties
before July 22.
July 18, 2016 - SC accepts majority of the

Lodha recommendations
The Supreme Court rules in favour of

implementing a majority of the Lodha
Committee proposals, and gives the BCCI
between four and six months to implement
them. Lodha, the court says, will oversee the
implementation process.
Nagraj Gollapudi is a senior assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. Rachna

Shetty is a senior sub-editor at ESPNcricinfo
India news June 30, 2016
SC decision on Lodha panel

report likely in three weeks
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI IN DELHI
India's Supreme Court has reserved its

judgement in the case concerning
implementation of the Lodha Committee
recommendations by the BCCI. There will be no
further hearing in the case and the two-judge
bench, comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and
Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla, will submit the written
judgement to the concerned parties. The
judgement is likely to be delivered before July 21,
the date when Justice Kalifulla retires.
The hearings in the case concluded on Thursday
afternoon (June 30) after senior legal counsel KK
Venugopal, representing the BCCI, wrapped up
his arguments. Before concluding his defence,
which lasted nearly 90 minutes, Venugopal said
that the BCCI was happy to implement every
recommendation made by the Lodha committee
barring "six or seven". These included:
restrictions on ministers and bureaucrats being
part of the BCCI and state associations, 'one
state, one vote', presence of a nominee of the
Comptroller and Auditor General on the apex
council, and an age cap of 70 years for office-
bearers.
In May, former BCCI president Shashank

Manohar had stated five recommendations
the board was opposed to: advertisements
between overs during a match broadcast, 'one
state, one vote', the presence of two members
from IPL franchises on the league's governing
council, the formation of an apex council, and a
cap on the tenure of the office bearers.
Venugopal argued that that there could not be

any judicial review of the board's activities and
read out previous judgments to stress his point.
He said that the BCCI was not a corporate body,
but a society which is a "conglomeration of
members" protected under Article 19 (1) (c) of
the Constitution of India. The specific
constitutional clause relates to the right to form
an association and Venugopal said the court
must not interfere with that right.
The BCCI counsel said that the Indian board had
already accepted and implemented most of the
recommendations by the Lodha committee, such
as: appointments of the chief executive officer
and chief financial officer; recruitment of
consultants like Pricewaterhouse Coopers to
audit accounts of the BCCI and state
associations; organisation of cricket camps under
the guidance of former India players like Dilip
Vengsarkar, Kiran More and Shiv Sunder Das in
the north-eastern states under a scheme to
develop the game in new areas.
However, when Venugopal pointed out that the

BCCI had taken action against officials of the
Goa Cricket Association, who were arrested for
alleged fraud, both the bench as well as amicus
curiae Gopal Subramanium stated the board had
failed to maintain checks and balances for a long
time.
Venugopal claimed the BCCI reacted proactively

and swiftly as it suspended GCA president
Chetan Desai from the board's marketing
committee and association secretary Vinod
Phadke from the information and technology
committee. Incidentally, Desai, Phadke and
treasurer Akbar Mulla, who was also arrested,
are still office bearers in the association.
Subramanium praised the BCCI for its action but

pointed out that it had come a bit late. He told
the court the board had done nothing for years,
disbursing funds to the state associations
without asking what the money was being used
for, who was using it and how it was being
utilised. Apart from Goa, Subramanium pointed
to the Delhi & District Cricket Association
(DDCA) and Saurashtra Cricket Association as
examples of the board's oversight.
"A total of Rs 141 crore has been given to GCA

from 2010-11. When Justice Mudgal was
appointed (by Delhi High Court to oversee the
conduct of the fourth Test against South Africa
last year) he could not believe the sorry state of
affairs (at the DDCA). In Saurashtra one whole
family are the members of a cricket association,"
Subramanium told the court.
He cited another example of malfeasance at

DDCA, where 14 members were listed as staying
at a single address that was only 48 square
metres in area. "How many members can live in
48 square metres? But from one such address,
there are 14 members in the DDCA,"
Subramanium said. When Justice Thakur asked
whether all 14 members were from one family,
Subramanium said that was not the case: "Puris,
Walias, Ahluwalias, all under one roof that is
only 48 square metres."
Justice Thakur asked whether the big-name

auditors like PWC were actually checking what
the funds were being used for. "If you are giving
Rs 200 crore are there much verifications being
done, are there safeguards against
misappropriation? If you had a system in place,
this [GCA] would not have happened today,"
Justice Thakur said. He then suggested that it
was important for the board to conduct a
"performance audit" and have a robust
mechanism of safeguards in place.
In fact, a performance audit is one of the

recommendations made by the Lodha panel that
was appointed in January 2015 by the court - in
the aftermath of the investigation into the IPL
2013 corruption scandal - to examine and
suggest changes to the functioning of the Indian
cricket board.
Venugopal said the BCCI had also taken action

against associations like the Bihar Cricket
Association and the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket
Association recently by cutting off their funds.
Nalini Chidambaram, the counsel for Cricket
Association for Bihar, the original petitioner in
the IPL 2013 corruption case, countered
Venugopal and said the board had punished the
Bihar Cricket Association by "actually giving
them funds worth Rs 50 lakh".
Justice Thakur responded to Venugopal's

defence by saying, "Someone has swindled you.
How is the BCCI claiming credit? There was no
fact-finding mission set up. Now since May 10,
you have been seeking utilisation certificates but
what happened before that? Why were you
sleeping all these years? Why were utilisation
certifications not sought? You were disbursing
funds without the utilisation certificates." The
chief justice added that by stopping funds the
BCCI was hurting the interests of the game and
the players, without allowing them to "flourish".
The court was also shown an interview of BCCI
president Anurag Thakur where he said that if
the Lodha committee recommendations were
adopted, it would set the BCCI back by 20 years.
"Send Test cricket back by 20 years," the chief
justice remarked, in response.
Over the last few months, the Supreme Court has

been critical of the board's reluctance to adopt
the Lodha recommendations. The judges have
slammed the BCCI's method of disbursing funds
to state associations and also rebuffed arguments
made by the state associations and the board
against the Lodha panel recommendations,
which were made public in January this year. A
month after the report, the Court also set the
BCCI a deadline to make its stance clear on the
recommendations or deal with the possibility of
having the court implement it for them.
India news July 18, 2016
BCCI given six months to

implement Lodha committee
reforms
The Supreme Court has accepted the majority of the Lodha Committee
recommendations covering wide-ranging aspects of Indian cricket at the
central and state level. It has given the BCCI between four and six
months to implement the recommendations and appointed RM Lodha,
the former chief justice of India who was the architect of the report,
to oversee the transition.
The order was delivered on Monday afternoon by the two-judge bench,
comprising Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim
Kalifulla, which has been hearing the case since January.
"In the result, we accept the report submitted by

the [Lodha] Committee and the
recommendations made therein with such
modifications and clarifications as have been set
out by us in the body of this judgement," the
bench said in its order. "The transition from the
old to the new system recommended by the
Committee shall have to be under the watchful
supervision of this Court.
"The supervision of the transition can, in our

opinion, be left to be undertaken by the
Committee not only because it has a complete
understanding of and insight into the nature of
the problems sought to be remedied but also the
ability to draw timelines for taking of steps
necessary for the implementation of the
proposed reforms. We are conscious of fact that
the process may be time consuming but we hope
that the same should be completed within a
period of four months or at best six months from
today. We, therefore, request the committee
headed by Justice Lodha to draw appropriate
timelines for implementation of the
recommendations and supervise the
implementation thereof.
"With these observations we dispose of the

matter finally placing on record our deep
appreciation for the commendable work which
the Committee has done in a short period."
The BCCI counsel KK Venugopal told the court
that his client "will show greatest respect in
implementing the judgment". BCCI president
Anurag Thakur offered no comment because he
said he wanted to study the order first, but IPL
chairman Rajiv Shukla said the BCCI would
respect the judgement and discuss the procedure
for implementation at a meeting.
Reacting to the court order, Lodha said he hoped

it would be a positive influence on the game.
"Great day for Indian cricket and Indian sport,
think cricket fans should rejoice the verdict of
Supreme Court," he told ANI.
The panel - comprising Lodha and retired

Supreme Court judges, Ashok Bhan and R
Raveendran - had been formed in January
2015 to determine appropriate punishments for
Rajasthan Royals official Raj Kundra, Chennai
Super Kings official Gurunath Meiyappan and
their respective franchises, and decide on Sundar
Raman's role in the IPL 2013 scandal, and
propose changes to the BCCI's functioning to
streamline its functions and prevent sporting
fraud and conflict of interest.

announced by the Lodha Committee in January
this year were accordingly aimed at transforming
the BCCI's power structure. The court accepted
the committee's recommendation of giving each
state only one vote in the BCCI's elections and
and removing the vote from associations without
territorial definitions (Railways and Services, for
example).
The court also approved of recommendations
that sought to define stringent eligibility criteria
for the board's office-bearers and set limits to
their time in office. Ministers and bureaucrats
currently holding office will not to be allowed to
hold BCCI positions, neither would those
officials holding office in their state associations
or those above 70 years of age.
The committee's recommendation that there be

five elected office-bearers - president, secretary,
one vice-president instead of the current five,
treasurer and joint-secretary - but that they serve
no more than three three-year terms across
positions was also accepted by the court; as was
the motion to have a "cooling-off" period
between terms to prevent an official from
holding high BCCI office for several years at a
stretch.
The Lodha's report had also recommended that

the Working Committee, the BCCI's highest
decision-making body, be replaced with a nine-
member Apex Council, which will include
representatives from the players' community -
including one woman. There should also be a
nominee of the Comptroller and Auditor General
to keep an eye on how the board's vast resources
were being utilised. The BCCI was asked to
implement all these recommendations.
There were three major recommendations made

by the Lodha Committee that the Supreme Court
did not direct the BCCI to implement. The court
did not accept the recommendation to impose
restrictions on television advertisements during
the broadcast of matches, and it said that the
matters of bringing the BCCI under the Right to
Information Act and legalising betting in the
country were matters for the Indian legislature.

July 19, 2016
What next for the BCCI?

SHARDA UGRA
Their strategy in dealing with the Lodha panel's

recommendations was severely flawed, and the chickens
have now come home to roost
There is no knowing whether anyone in the BCCI

is a fan of either Charles Darwin, Benjamin
Franklin or Albert Einstein. Supreme Court
judges definitely are, going by the opening
paragraphs of the 143-page judgement issued by
the two-man bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur
and Justice FMI Kalifullah. The three mighty
minds were quoted when discussing
humankind's resistance to change, with the
bench recognising that the BCCI's strident
objections to the Lodha committee
recommendations were meant to protect a
"continuance of the status quo".
The Supreme Court's final order directly

addresses and proceeds to upturn the BCCI's
objectionsto the Lodha recommendations,
which detailed organisational reform within
India's richest sporting body and cricket's
strongest board. The court accepted both the
Lodha report and its recommendations with a
handful of minor "modifications and
clarifications". This marks the end of three years
of miscalculations by individual office-bearers,
and collective decision-making by the BCCI that
began with the arrest of three cricketers in May
2013.
What happens next? In real terms, the day-to-

day operations of Indian cricket will keep
running. Like the Lodha report, the Supreme
Court order once again separates governance
from operations. The operational BCCI continues
on its way, now armed with a CEO, an
ombudsman, an ethics officer, and a full-time
professional auditor. What has been rigorously
shaken, with nuts and bolts now left rattling, is
the existing frame of the BCCI, which is less
stainless steel and more rusted metal.
The order lays down a fairly watertight list of

strictures for aspiring cricket officials, focusing
on what posts they can hold in cricket
administration, particularly at the highest level,
and for how long. The much-advertised "love for
cricket" of many seasoned, or indeed newly
appointed, cricket officials will now be put to the
test. The court has ordered that the
recommendations be implemented within six
months - by the time Justice TS Thakur serves
his full term and hands charge for the BCCI's
restructuring to the very individuals who held up
a mirror to the board: Team Lodha.
The Supreme Court's order was fairly

considerate when hammering home a few
disputed recommendations. Fussed about how to
fund a players' association? the court asked. The
funding is your prerogative, but there has got to
be an association. Angry about a "cooling-off
period" between two terms in top BCCI posts?
Arrive at a conclusion on how to handle this, but
the cooling-off period stays. IPL franchises on
the all-powerful IPL governing council? Let's ask
the Lodha committee to work out if this is not
a conflict of interest and then see what they
say.
The court divorced itself from issuing unyielding

orders on matters that were not strictly within
the Lodha panel's reformative and
recommendatory ambit. Like controlling the
amount and nature of advertising on
cricket broadcasts on television by
reworking existing deals (this recommendation
was dead on arrival on the grounds of common
sense alone), or knotty legislative issues like
legalising betting or placing the BCCI under the
ambit of the Right to Information Act.
Weighty, monumental (and cataclysmic for the

BCCI), the Lodha report order carries much
significance. If the BCCI, a financially self-
sufficient, self-sustaining and globally significant
sports body - and therefore an anomaly among
Indian sports bodies - can be made answerable
to writ jurisdictions, its functioning taken apart
in court, so can any other Indian national sports
federation. These bodies that run India's
Olympic sports, largely supported by public
money, have previously been considered
untouchable, backed as they are by political
bigwigs and legal luminaries.
What has been rigorously shaken, with nuts and bolts now left rattling, is the
existing frame of the BCCI, which is less stainless steel and more rusted metal
The Thakur-Kalifullah bench has cited the

government's National Sports Development
Code 2011 - which applies to all nationally
recognised sports bodies - in setting an age limit
of 70 for the BCCI's office-bearers. What applies
to other sports bodies must work for the BCCI.
So too, what has been ordered upon the BCCI,
could be wrought upon any other Indian sports
body.
An example has been made of the BCCI, until

now considered well above these shambolically
run associations, both financially and
organisationally. No matter how much financial
strength and global clout a sports body can
acquire, it must work alongside with, rather than
supplant, good governance, transparency and
accountability.
The BCCI's response in this affair from the outset

- despite the presence of many weighty shining
legal lights on its roster and on its side - was
heavy-handed. Both in court and in the public.
The board's first response was to let out a few
high-volume sound bites: that the
recommendations were not binding, that the
BCCI was a private body and so it could not be
approached as if it were a public enterprise. It
was this line of argument that occupied far too
much of the court's time, and must have set the
judges' teeth on edge.
One of the more revealing parts of the order

says: "Neither BCCI nor anyone else has assailed
the findings recorded by the Committee insofar
as the deep rooted malaise that pervades in the
working of the BCCI is concerned either in the
affidavits filed or in the course of arguments at
the bar." Which in layman's language means that
neither the BCCI nor anyone else has strongly
criticised the Lodha committee's findings with
reference to the flaws in the BCCI's functioning,
neither in written affadavits filed or verbal
arguments made before the bench. The BCCI was
not righteously claiming to having been unfairly
criticised with reference to its functioning. What
it was saying to the highest court of the country -
and the highest judge in that court - was that you
do not have the right to tick us off.
The better option could have been to respond

strategically to the Lodha committee report from
the very beginning, by picking out early the
recommendations they thought were the least
amenable to implementation, or inconvenient,
and work with that, approaching the court with
humility rather than habitual hubris. They had a
better chance of arguing the age limit and tenure
continuity at length than they did about private
vs public and the freedom of association as
pertaining to the state associations. That too in a
climate surrounding the BCCI's laissez faire
attitude to the Goa Cricket
Association's multiple scandals until the last
month or so and theshenanigans of DDCA,
also exposed in court.
The BCCI's legal eagles should also have been

able to sense two moods - that the BCCI's public
image was far from the best to start with,
particularly in terms of its engagement with the
judiciary. Secondly, in the past few years, India's
courts have been particularly forceful in handing
out judgements pertaining to governance or
administration, a trend that has been referred to
as "judicial activism" (or, in the words of policy
academic Pratap Bhanu Mehta, "judicial
exasperation"). For the BCCI it was certainly not
the right time to show what would be called
"attitude". But show it they did.
What might the BCCI's options now be? To start

with, they could consider hiring a new legal
team. A short-term response would be to
disband the board and resume operations under
a new name. Or dash off a letter to the ICC
saying the Supreme Court has ordered them to
accept government interference - in the form of
the nominee from the Comptroller and Auditor
General's Office - at both national or state levels.
Or attempt some off-court filibustering in front
of Lodha to try and stall any action, till Justice
Thakur retires in January and they can begin the
legal roundabout all over again.
But each of these counters has its counter-

arguments. Besides, Monday's order says clearly
that "should any impediments arise" the
Supreme Court can be approached once again by
a status report being filed.
Many within the BCCI - and there are several

who are well-intentioned and committed - may
find their positions now rendered non-existent
and their powers severely curtailed, and may well
ask, "How did we get here?" The answer to that is
simple - one mistake at a time.
Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo
Lodha panel confirms nine-year

cap for state office bearers
NAGRAJ GOLLAPUDI
The Lodha Committee has made it clear that

office bearers, across the BCCI and state
associations, who have completed nine years in
the job cumulatively stand disqualified and
cannot contest for another term. The committee
was responding to queries from various state
associations asking how it determined if an
officer bearer was not eligible - that is, if the
nine-year cap only took effect going forward, or if
it would take into account years already in office
at the time of the Supreme Court's order.
In its attempt to clear the doubts, the committee

sent an email to the BCCI, asking it to relay the
clarification to the state associations. The
committee said that some of the state
associations, which are scheduled to hold their
elections in the near future, had raised a "point
of confusion" with regards to the maximum
period prescribed in the Lodha report. The
report, which was signed off on by the Supreme
Court on July 18, said office bearers can hold
office for a maximum of nine years - three three-
year terms, with cooling off periods in between.
The committee summed up the queries as: "1.

Are individuals who have cumulatively
completed nine years as office bearers of a state
association disqualified from again becoming
office bearers? 2. Is the nine-year
disqualification period to be reckoned only
commencing from the date of the judgment
(18.07.2016) or does it include tenures as office
bearers prior to that date?"
Having deliberated on the matter, the three-man

committee headed by RM Lodha, the former
chief justice of India, decided that any office
bearer who has cumulatively completed a period
of nine years in a state association stands
disqualified from contesting further elections or
keeping the post.
"So that there is no doubt, if any individual has

completed nine years as an office bearer
(whether through consecutive or separate terms;
whether in one post or another) of the state
association by or before 18.07.2016, that
individual stands disqualified," the committee
said.
While delivering its landmark judgement that

made it mandatory for the BCCI to implement
most of the recommendations of the Lodha
Committee, the Supreme Court appointed the
same panel to oversee the implementation of the
recommendations within the specified six
months. On July 20 the committee declaredthat
the elections of all states associations that have
been conducted since the order (Jammu &
Kashmir Cricket Association) or are scheduled to
be conducted in the near future (Cricket
Association of Bengal, July 31, and Karnataka
State Cricket Association, August 7) will be
declared null and void.
In today's email to the BCCI, the committee said

that it had started drawing up a roadmap with
timelines to help the board swiftly put the
reforms in place.
BCCI working committee to

discuss Lodha recommendations
on August 2
The BCCI has convened an emergent working

committee meeting on August 2 in Mumbai,
ahead of its special AGM on August 5 in New
Delhi. The meeting will focus on the Supreme
Court's order to implement the Lodha
Committee recommendations and the proposed
T20I series between West Indies and India in the
USA next month. The notice for the working
committee meeting was reportedly sent on
Saturday.
"A working committee meeting has been
convened in Mumbai on August 2 to discuss the
Supreme Court verdict on Justice Lodha
Committee's reforms in the board," BCCI sources
toldPTI. "It will also discuss the two-match T20
series between India and West Indies proposed
to be held in Florida, USA after the conclusion of
the current tour of West Indies by the Indian
team."
Asked whether everything had been finalised

about the short T20 series, the sources told PTI,
"more or less".
The BCCI had earlier announced a special

general meeting in August 5 in New Delhi to
discuss the recommendations, which were
approved by the Supreme Court on July 18. BCCI
president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay
Shirke are also scheduled to meet with the
Lodha Committee in Delhi on August 9, although
a board official had told ESPNcricinfo that a date
had not yet been fixed.
The meetings come after the BCCI was given

between four and six months by the Supreme
Court to implement the Lodha panel's
recommendations, which cover wide-ranging
aspects of Indian cricket at the central and state
level. RM Lodha, the former chief justice of India
who was the architect of the report, has been
directed to oversee the transition.
The other agenda before the working committee

is the proposed series in Florida, and a source
with knowledge of negotiations between the
BCCI and the WICB told ESPNcricinfo that the
series was "98% on". The 2% hold-up on
finalising the August series is based on multiple
factors, including the visa status of the players.
However, multiple sources have confirmed that
the BCCI has already submitted names,
photographs and documents for their intended
T20 squad to the US Embassy in Jamaica, where
the second Test started on Saturday.
India newsAugust 2, 2016
BCCI forms new legal panel to

liaise with Lodha committee
ARUN VENUGOPAL
The BCCI's working committee on Tuesday

approved the formation of a new legal panel as a
"single point interface for the BCCI to interact
with the Justice Lodha Committee" during the
implementation of the report. Former Supreme
Court judge Markandey Katju will head the
panel, which also comprises three other legal
counsels, including BCCI's counsel Abhinav
Mukerjee. The panel is also expected to advise
and guide the BCCI through its transition.
A press release from the board stated that the

decision to form a panel, which will was taken
after members felt that the Lodha committee
"recommendations were complex" and many
"technical and legal aspects were likely to come
up" during the implementation of these
suggestions as directed by the Supreme Court.
Even as the BCCI's press release said the creation
of this panel was a "unanimous" decision, there
appeared to be differing views from members of
the working committee on the matter. It is also
understood that the views of the board's legal
committee were not taken on board before the
panel was formed. An official from a southern
state association said members were not in
favour of a new legal panel as it would not serve
any purpose.
"The suggestion was there for [creating] the

committee to discuss all issues [but] members
said they didn't want a committee," the official
told ESPNcricinfo. "See, all of them felt it was
not going to be of any help when the attitude of
the judges and the committee has been so
hostile. The solution is whatever
[recommendations] can be implemented we will
implement.
"In any case, we have time [to implement the

recommendations]. Every state association has
their own concerns; they want to know what
BCCI is going to do first."
A BCCI official, however, said the legal panel

would be better equipped to convey the
grievances of the state associations to the Lodha
Committee. "No state association should directly
deal with Lodha committee," he said. "If they
have a problem they will have to go through this
panel and the panel will interact with [Lodha
committee]. It is always better than state
associations directly dealing, [which] will mess
up the whole thing. There will not be any
discipline; everybody will become independent."
He also said none of the board's office bearers

wll feature in the panel, as there would be a
conflict of interest. "[There was] no alternative
[to creating this panel]," he said. "Most of the
associations have had their office bearers
disqualified."
The Supreme Court, on July 18, accepted the

majority of the recommendations put forward by
the three-member Lodha panel, which had been
tasked with proposing changes to streamline the
board's functioning and prevent sporting fraud
and conflict of interest. The report was made
public on January 4 and covered wide-ranging
aspects of Indian cricket at the central and state
level. The court heard arguments from the BCCI
on its reservations against some of the
recommendations but finally accepted most of
the reforms and has given the board between
four and six months to implement them.
While president Anurag Thakur and secretary

Ajay Shirke are slated to meet with the Lodha
committee on August 9, a committee source said
they had not yet responded to communication
from the panel.
Arun Venugopal is a correspondent at ESPNcricinfo. @scarletrun


Thakur, Shirke to guide BCCI,
member units on Lodha
recommendations
ARUN VENUGOPAL
The BCCI has authorised its president Anurag

Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke to look into the
legal ramifications of the Supreme
Court verdict that approved the Lodha
Committee's recommendations and guide the
board and its member units. While there was no
official statement from the BCCI, sources that
attended the meeting confirmed that Thakur and
Shirke will, in conjunction with the newly
formed legal panel, engage with the Lodha
Committee, and they will represent the concerns
of the state associations as well.
"This (Lodha Committee verdict) was the single-

point agenda, and it was one [short, focused
meeting] that lasted about half an hour to 45
minutes," a state association official from the
east zone told ESPNcricinfo. "The BCCI has the
legal cell. We as a state association don't know
the legal aspects but somebody has to take care
of such things. So, the SGM was called to
authorise the secretary and the president to look
into it. Concerns of individual state associations
were not discussed; it was [a discussion] on the
whole as reforms are meant for everybody."
Another official from a southern state said state

associations had been instructed to direct their
legal queries to the board's lawyers who will
advise them on the future course of action.
According to him, however, the board's first task
would be to seek clarifications regarding its own
functioning.
"On August 9, the president and secretary are

supposed to meet the Lodha Committee," the
official said. "The first priority is clarifications
regarding the BCCI, only then will state
associations come into the picture. Clarifications
on all matters - when should the constitution be
amended and how, the recommendations, and
we also have the AGM coming up in September -
will be sought."
While there has been speculation that the BCCI

is inclined to file a review petition challenging
the Supreme Court's verdict, the official said it
was a decision the president and secretary would
make based on the legal advice they get. "There
will be greater clarity once they meet the Lodha
Committee on the ninth," he said.
The official also said there was no instruction

from the board regarding elections of the
Karnataka State Cricket Association and the
Cricket Association of Bengal. The Lodha
Committee had directed the CAB and KSCA to
put their polls - scheduled for July 31 and August
7 respectively - on hold. "The BCCI will give its
opinion on it. There will be more clarity after
they discuss with the Lodha Committee. We are
not going to raise anything as far as state
associations are concerned, let the BCCI do. The
states will fall in place thereafter."
Arun Venugopal is a correspondent at ESPNcricinfo. @scarletrun
Supreme Court ruling on Lodha

reforms 'unconstitutional' -
former judge
The Supreme Court verdict on BCCI reforms
has come under sharp attack from former apex-
court judge Markandey Katju, who termed the
matter "unconstitutional and illegal".
Katju, who had been appointed by the BCCI to

advice it on the Supreme Court verdict relating
to the implementation of the Lodha Committee
recommendations, also advised the board to file
a review petition before a larger bench of the
apex court, and to not meet the Lodha
Committee as scheduled on August 9, terming
the panel as "null and void".
"What the Supreme Court has done is

unconstitutional and illegal," Katju said at a
media conference. "There has been violation of
principles of the [Indian] Constitution. Under
our Constitution, we have legislature, executive
and judiciary. There is broad separation of
functions. It's the legislature's prerogative to
make laws. If judiciary starts making laws, one is
setting a dangerous precedent.
"I have advised them [the BCCI] to file a review

petition before a larger bench. In this case, the
Supreme Court outsourced a committee [the
Lodha Committee] to decide on BCCI's
punishment."
BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke said the BCCI will

study the interim report prepared by Justice
Katju and then take a call.
"The Supreme Court had appointed the Lodha

Committee to find the defects in working of
BCCI. That was okay. When the Lodha
Committee report was submitted to the Supreme
Court, it should have been forwarded to
Parliament and State Legislatures," Katju said.
"It then should have been left to legislature to
accept or not to accept the recommendations.
Judiciary is not supposed to legislate."
He offered examples of cases where a larger

bench with four or five judges have handled
serious issues.
Justice Katju's take is that since the BCCI's

constitution has been prepared as per Tamil
Nadu Societies Registration Act, both the
Supreme Court and Lodha Committee can't
forcibly change the BCCI's by-laws.
"Both Supreme Court and Lodha Committee

violated 'Tamil Nadu Societies Registrar Act'," he
said. "They [the BCCI] have their own
memorandum and by-laws. If you want to
change the [BCCI's] constitution, a special
resolution needs to be passed by two-third of
majority. The society alone can amend the by-
laws. There can be complaints on financial
irregularities or administrative lapses, one has to
write to Registrar of Societies."
Justice Katju did agree, however, that "reforms
are needed in the BCCI", but he also had a
counter argument. "If we speak about reforms in
BCCI, then reforms are needed in judiciary also.
There are more than three crore cases pending in
Indian courts. And if this dangerous trend starts,
tomorrow the Supreme Court might dictate
editorial policies of press, the tenure of
journalists... It will then open a Pandora's Box."

Cricinfo Lodha Panel

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cricinfo Lodha Panel

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Corruption in IPL January 22, 2015

New panel to take call on Kundra, Meiyappan

Board panel has 82 questions for BCCI bosses

Five key questions

With inputs from Amol Karhadkar

Lodha panel to announce

The three-member panel headed by former Chief

The Lodha committee was appointed on

The court had also directed the Lodha panel,

Corruption in the IPL July 13, 2015

IPL spot-fixing: The key events

May 16, 2013

February 10, 2014

Corruption in the IPLJuly 13, 2015

What is the Lodha committee?

Determine appropriate punishments for

Suggest amendments to the processes followed by

What will the Lodha committee do on July

What is likely to happen with Super Kings

Super Kings and Royals could be suspended or

Both the teams could be fined heavily for

Super Kings could be suspended/banned while

Royals could be suspended/ banned while Super

Can the parties appeal?

Is this an end to the IPL 2013 corruption

Is the Lodha committee's work done?

Amol Karhadkar is a correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

CRICINFOUSER ON JULY 13, 2015, 20:17 GMT

ESPNCRICINFOMOBILE ON JULY 13, 2015, 16:42 GMT

Corruption in the IPL July 14, 2015

Excerpts from the Lodha panel's

Excerpts from Justice Lodha's verdict on IPL corruption

That he lost up to Rs 60 lakhs in bets shows that

The committee imposes following sanctions:

He is declared ineligible for participation in the

He is suspended for life from the activities as

He is suspended for life from being involved in

Raj Kundra As part owner, having 11.4% of

He is declared ineligible from participation in the

He is suspended for life from activities as

He is suspended for life from being involved with

On consideration of all relevant aspects of

Corruption in the IPL July 15, 2015

The Lodha panel's punitive measures will reassure those who

The Supreme Court's judgment, delivered on

What's more, the court had also confirmed the

This was so because the court had deferred to an

On Tuesday, this court-appointed committee,

At the outset, the Committee clarified its specific

This finding by the court, in the committee's

"If the culpability of the two Franchisees," wrote

Previously, the Mudgal panel had found - as was

At the time of arguing the quantum of

"The Supreme Court's analysis of the Operational

In Meiyappan's case, the committee found, there

Kundra's counsel also sought to make arguments

The counsel for ICL and JICL, for their parts,

In the case of ICL, the Committee ruled that the

As far as JICL was concerned, its omission in

It's worthwhile to note that ICL had, in fact,

It is plausible to argue that these orders of

This observation greatly reduces the options

The Supreme Court's original intervention in