This article is written by  Konina Mandal, a student of KIIT Law School, Bhubaneswar.

To an Indian, cricket is not just a game. It is a religion. Like everything religious, it is very close to human emotion, connecting  the people of India in a unique way. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is the national governing body for cricket in India. Serious inaction with regard to match-fixing, betting, 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 has invited much condemnation.

A BRIEF SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT  LEAD TO THE REPORT

It all began in May 2013 when noted Indian cricketers S Sreesanth, Ankeet Chavan and Ajit Chandila got arrested on account of fraud and cheating, following their suspension by the BCCI,  Mumbai Police arrested the owner of top favourite franchise Chennai Super Kings, Gurunath Meiyappan over the same charges. Later that month, Raj Kundra, co-owner of Rajasthan Royals also faced suspension on account of betting.

The same month saw the IPL governing council appoint a three-member probe panel  to look into the complaints against Gurunath and Kundra. It led to the conclusion that there was “no evidence of any wrongdoing “by Kundra and Gurunath. Responding to a public interest litigation by the Cricket Association of Bihar in July 2013. It was a controversial report;  the Bombay High Court stated  that the BCCI’s probe panel was constituted illegally, and that there was disparity in the evidence collected by the panel. Following the PIL, the SC issued notice 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.

In October 2013, The Supreme Court constituted a 3 member probe panel comprising of Justice Mukul Mudgal, senior advocate and additional solicitor general L Nageshwar Rao and Assam Cricket Association member Nilay Dutta. With a time limit of 4 months the panel was to conduct its independent investigation into the abovementioned corruption allegations.The Mudgal probe panel’s first report found Gurunath and Kundra guilty of indulging in betting and passing on information during the IPL 2013. In March, the Supreme Court asked then BCCI president N Srinivasan to step down to allow for a fair investigation of the IPL corruption scandal referring to his staying on as “nauseating for cricket.” He was kept out of the BCCI set-up then onwards.

The Mudgal panel probe continued its investigation directed by the SC empowered with greater powers, the court again directed the panel to submit a report in August 2014.In relation to the Mudgal report the Supreme Court named four individuals Srinivasan, IPL chief operating officer Sundar Raman, Gurunath and Kundra. Even though Srinivasan was not directly involved in betting or fixing, or of trying to prevent the investigation into the IPL 2013 corruption scandal he, along with four other BCCI officials, knew about an IPL player violating the code of conduct, but took no action. Raman knew a contact of a bookie and had contacted him eight times in a season, and  investigations into Kundra stopped “abruptly and without reason” when the Rajasthan police was given information about Kundra by the Delhi police.[i]

For the first time in history, an external agency, the Supreme Court, amended the Constitution of the BCCI.  The Supreme Court in its judgement pertaining to the 2013 IPL corruption case[ii] struck down the controversial amendment[iii] to the BCCI constitution’s clause 6.2.4 that allowed board officials to have a commercial interest in the IPL and the Champions League T20, declaring  “void and ineffective”, “unsustainable and impermissible in law”.

FORMATION OF THE LODHA COMMITTEE

In January 2015 the Court appointed a 3 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.
• To look into the role of Raman in the spot-fixing scandal and decide on a punishment, if necessary.
• To suggest amendments to the processes followed by the BCCI with a view to preventing sporting frauds and conflict of interests
• To make the board more responsive to public expectations

An 82-point questionnaire was sent by the panel to top board administrators to seek clarity on the functioning of the BCCI. This questionnaire was a guide to recommend changes to the BCCI’s Constitution and functioning.

In July 2015, the committee suspended India Cements and Jaipur IPL. owners of CSK and RR respectively. Meiyappan and Kundra were also banned for life with regard to involvement in cricket matches.

Recently the Lodha panel submitted its FINAL REPORT to the Supreme Court in which it has recommended sweeping changes to the BCCI’s administrative and governance structures.

SUGGESTIONS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE LODHA COMMITTEE

The Court having realized the disrepute earned by cricket, had to intervene to bring it back from the chasm of misconduct and malpractices. The suggestions that follow show the  Committee’s effort to restore Indian cricket to its deserved status by putting in place good governance structures and best practices.[iv]

• With regard to Membership, Only cricket Associations representing the States would have voting rights as Full Members of the Board, thereby ensuring equality among the territorial divisions. Any other existing members would be Associate Members.
• Zones will be considered relevant only for the purpose of the tournaments conducted amongst themselves, but not for nomination to the governance of the Board or to the various Standing Committees.
• A uniformity in Structure is sought to be achieved with regard to State Associations. Members would necessarily have to restrict the tenures of office bearers and prescribe disqualifications, do away with proxy voting, provide transparency in functioning, be open to scrutiny and audit by the BCCI and include players in membership and management. They would also have to abide by the conflict of interest policy prescribed by the Board, and divorce the Association from the social club, if any.[v]
• The number of Vice Presidents have been pruned from 5 to 1 keeping the other honorary positions of President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer and Joint Secretary intact. Their duties have been realigned. The President is shorn of his say in selections. The additional vote for the President at meetings is deleted. The terms of these Office Bearers continue to be of 3 years, but with a maximum of 3 such terms regardless of the post held, with a cooling off period after each such term.
• Separating governance from management, a 9 member Apex Council (with one-third independent members) replaces the 14 member Working Committee. The Council would be consisting of the Office Bearers of the BCCI, an elected representative of the General Body, two representatives of the Players Association (one man and one woman) and one nominee from the C&AG’s office. Terms of eligibility and disqualification are specified with a bar on Ministers and government servants.
• The introduction of the post of a CEO with strong credentials assisted by a team of managers to handle non-cricketing affairs has been proposed to ensure more professionalism. The Standing and Sub- Committees of the BCCI has been reduced to 2 essential ones which will advice the CEO with reference to tours, technical aspects and tournaments.
• Specific provisions have been made to encourage cricket for women and the differently-abled. Cricket Committees manned only by former professionals are to look into the selection, coaching, performance evaluation and umpiring.
• The IPL Governing Council has been given limited autonomy reducing it to 9, including 2 representatives of the Franchisees and nominees of the Players’ Association and the C&AG’s office.
• Initiation of a Cricket Players’ Association has been proposed which will afford membership to all international and most first class men and women retired cricketers, with the objective of discharging assigned functions with the financial support of the BCCI. It shall be brought into existence by an independent steering committee.[vi]
• Agents must be registered under the prescribed norms administered by the BCCI and the Players’ Cricket Association.
• An Ethics Officer will administer detailed norms laid down to avoid any direct or indirect, pecuniary or other conflict or appearance in the discharge of the functions of those persons associated or employed by the BCCI, its Committees, its Members or the IPL Franchisees.
• The institution of Independent monitors is a notable recommendation. To have an independent Ombudsman to resolve grievances of Members, Administrators, Players and even members of the public and an independent Electoral Officer to oversee the entire electoral process is a novel way of maintaining
• The BCCI must provide the relevant information in discharge of its public functions. All rules and regulations, norms, details of meetings, expenditures, balance sheets, reports and orders of authorities are to be uploaded on the website as well, bringing it under the ambit of RTI.
• An independent auditor has been proposed to verify how the Full Members have expended the grants given to them by the BCCI, to record their targets and milestones, and to submit a separate compliance report in this regard.
• An interesting proposal for the legalization of betting(with strong safeguards) has been made. Spot fixing/Match fixing is sought to be made a criminal offence.
• To bring about awareness and sensitization, provisions have also been made for lectures, classes, handbooks and mentoring of young players.

The Committee fervently hopes that this report will bring cricket fans back to the fold and put an end to regional excesses and imbalances, reign by cliques, corruption and red tape, all of which have harmed the game and the youngsters looking for nothing more than to take the field in flannels.[vii]

CONCLUSION

Currently, as of February 2016, the Supreme Court has given directions for BCCI to implement recommendation, so it has convened a Special General Meeting on February 19, 2016 to discuss the far-reaching consequences of the Justice RM Lodha Committee report. The far-reaching effect on the implementation of the Lodha Committee’s recommendations calling for sweeping reforms in the BCCI’s structure and the subsequent scathing observation on the matter by the Supreme Court which has shaken the Board members, is set to dominate the SGM.[viii] On effective implementation of the proposed recommendations of the Committee report, cricket will be  more transparent and the spirit of the game will be validated.

[i] How the IPL fixing case led to the Lodha report, ESPNcricinfo, available at http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/957791.html last seen on 11/2/2016

[ii] Board of Control for Cricket in India v Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) 1 MLJ 711

[iii] Court strikes down controversial BCCI clause,ESPNCricinfo, available at http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/823061.html last seen on 11/2/2016

[iv] Justice R.M Lodha Committee Report, available at https://lodhacommittee.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/report-on-cricket-reforms/ last seen on 11/2/2016

[v] Ibid at 80

[vi] Ibid at 82

[vii] Ibid at 84

[viii] Board of Control for Cricket in India to Convene Special Meeting To Discuss Justice Lodha Report Recommendations, NDTVSports,

 Available at http://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/news/255371-board-of-control-for-cricket-in-india-to-convene-special-meeting-to-discuss-justice-lodha-report-recommendations last seen on 11/2/2016