This article is written by Ranojoy Mukherjee of Lloyd Law College. The article discusses the findings of the Lodha  Committee.

Cricket in our nation has always been the sport which predominantly dwells in the heart of countrymen regardless of the fact whether the particular one is a cricket fanatic or not. But in return, such amount of love and passions often encounter an unfortunate deformity emanated from the administrative cells of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Such kinds of malpractices within its inner cell can be traced back from the indulgence of their administrative heads into the realms of never-ending controversies. It is pertinent to notice how BCCI every now and then continues to be involved in controversies followed by their large political interference, corruption, match-fixing or betting etc. So far, there have been innumerable debates seething in the favors and against the functioning of the BCCI due to the Indian Premier League ( broadly known as IPL) scam which literally undermined the national pride relating to sporting performance severely.

How it all started

1 May 16, 2013– Delhi police unveils spot fixing and match fixing scams.

2 July 28, 2013– BCCI appointed 2 member probe panel clears India Cements and Raj Kundra.

3 July 30, 2013– Bombay HC rules against BCCI probe panel and declares it illegal.

4 October 7, 2013– SC appoints the Justice Mudgal Probe Panel.

5 Feb 10, 2014– Justice Mudgal Probe Panel submits the report to SC finds Gurunath Meiyappa and Raj Kundra guilty illegal betting in cricket events

6 Jan 22, 2015– SC rules against BCCI’s controversial clause 6.2.4 which allows BCCI officials to have a commercial interest in IPL teams and appoints the Justice Lodha Committee.

7 July 14, 2015– Lodha committee submits the report on Gurunath Meiyappa, Raj Kundra, CSK, RR; recommends lifetime ban for Meiyappa and Kundra and 2 years suspension for CSK and RR.

8 Jan 4, 2016– Lodha committee submits Report on Reforms in Cricket and recommends drastic changes in BCCI.

9 Feb 4, 2016– SC asks BCCI to implements Lodha Committee’s recommendation.

10 March 3, 2016– BCCI files counter affidavit in SC against Lodha Committee’s recommendation.

11 July 18, 2016– SC upholds key recommendations and tasks the Lodha committee to oversee implementation within 4-6 months.

12 Sept 14, 2016– Lodha committee files first Status Report; recommends removal of BCCI Office Bearers and appointment of Panel of Administrator.

13 Oct 7, 2016– SC asks BCCI to cease further disbursement of funds to state associations until they accept Lodha Committee recommendations.

14 Oct 21, 2016– SC directs appointment of auditor fixes threshold value for contracts and instructs BCCI to cooperate with Lodha Committee.

15 Nov 7, 2016– Lodha Committee files second Status Report, reiterating non-compliance by BCCI.

16 Nov 14, 2016– Lodha Committee files third Status Report; recommends enforcement of recommended eligibility criteria and appointment of Mr. G.K Pillai as Observer.

17 Dec 13, 2016– SC releases judgments dismissing review petition filed by the BCCI against judgment delivered on July 18, 2016.

18 Dec 15, 2016– SC hears curative petitions filed by BCCI against judgment delivered on July 18, 2016; reserves judgment for Jan 3, 2017.

In a very unprecedented move, the Supreme court got involved in the functioning of BCCI in the case of BCCI vs. Lodha Committee. The inception of such a move by the apex court can be sensed to be the backwash of the IPL betting scam which shook the foundation of belief in the sanctity of the sport. In the abovementioned case, three cricketers, S. Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan, who represented Rajasthan Royal in 2013 Indian Premier League, were involved and also arrested by the Delhi Police on charges of spot-fixing. Upon further investigation, few other renowned names like Vindu Dara Singh and BCCI President N. Sreenivasan’s Son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan came in front as the backbone of such execution resulting which all of them were arrested by the Mumbai Crime Branch. In addition to that the apex court ensuring the fairness of the investigation also suggested the N. Srinivasan to step down from his position as BCCI president else, there could have been a verdict asking him to step down.

But the investigations were still on over the allegations of spot-fixing and betting in IPL. Therefore, considering the intricacies of this matter the apex court appointed a three-member committee, which was known as Mudgal Committee, headed by Justice Mukul Mudgal. The other two members were Additional Solicitor General of India L. Nageswara Rao and former cricket umpire Nilay Dutta. Followed by a stretch of inspection, the Mudgal committee unearthed the discrepancies performed by BCCI chief Srinivasan for being reluctant enough to act upon the accused of betting, IPL COO Sudar Raman, Chennai Super Kings’ owner Meiyappan and Rajasthan Royal’s owner Kundra, despite having the cognizance of the violation. The Supreme Court did agree with the Mudgal committee report but partly acceded to all its recommendations. Due to this fact, the Court felt the exigency of more stringent regulations and thus paved the path for another committee under the supervision of CJI, Justice R.M Lodha.

Lodha Committee

	Lodha Committee
1	Punishing those who are guilty by Mudgal Panel
2	Scrutinizing the role of COO
3	Transparency in the functioning of BCCI

With the advent of Lodha committee, it mainly focused on three major tasks; punishing those who have been found guilty by the Mudgal committee, scrutinizing the role of COO Sundar Raman in the IPL spot-fixing scam and providing more transparency in the functioning of BCCI to avoid further stings. Going by this agenda this committee did impose a lifetime ban on Meiyappan and Kundra and suspended the IPL franchises, Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals for two years. But the players associated with these franchises were given the liberty to be auctioned for other franchise.

The Lodha Committee further stressing on the issue of providing transparency in the functioning of BCCI, framed questionnaires on exhaustive set of topics such as the role of BCCI’s stakeholders in 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. With the help of their sent questionnaires, this committee shook the very foundation of BCCI just by introducing its revolutionary reforms within the power structure and functioning of BCCI.  And in addition to that, the functioning of the same had been highly applauded by the Supreme Court resulting which the BCCI had strictly been given an ultimatum to work adhering to the Lodha panel’s recommendations for the overhaul of Indian cricket.

All about Lodha Committee Recommendations

	Lodha Committee Major Recommendations
1	BCCI Office Bearers not more than 2 years
2	President of BCCI not for more than 2 years
3	One Vote Per State
4	Separate IPL Governing Body
5	Legalizations of Betting

The report laid down by the Lodha panel had its two integral parts. The first part of the report entails its objectives only and the second part of the report titled as ‘Getting off the mark’, critically analyses the gaps in the functioning of BCCI and state volumes about the prevalent corruption, lack of transparency, conflict of interest and such other difficulties. To address these issues, the Lodha Committee came up with following recommendations:

1. BCCI office-bearer can work for not more than two continuous terms: This recommendation is accompanied by fixing the retirement age at 70, in order to avoid the management of the sport by elderly who could barely speak, which indeed is the current trend. Also, those administrators who are declared as insolvent, or of unsound mind or charged with criminal charges, or who hold any office or post in a sport or athletic association or federation apart from cricket are to be eliminated.
2. President of the BCCI cannot hold his post for more than two years.
3. There is a proposition of one vote per state and no proxy voting: This recommendation would take away the monopoly of the suppressing states like Maharashtra, which currently exercises multiple votes owing to multiple associations.
4. Separate governing body for IPL with a certain level of sovereignty to be made available to IPL as a governing body. The committee has also suggested forming a players association and has called for a “steering committee”. The intention behind the same is to enforce grass root level change in the structure of BCCI.
5. Legalizations of betting have also been an integral part of such a proposition. It has also recommended that BCCI Officials shall disclose their assets to the boards so that they could be certain about the non-involvement of BCCI officials in betting.

Critical Overview

The board has always been reluctant to show any sort of excitement towards implementing those reforms as it would affect the working of the board to a great extent. The board did accept and promise to take up the reforms but at the same time, they miserably faltered in keeping their promise and implementing these measures. Hon’ble Supreme Court on the other end continues to force the board to implement these recommendations. In a complete resistance to what Supreme Court has stated, BCCI continuously rejected several recommendations of the panel, as in the opinion of the Board such recommendations don’t deem fit and they are subject to criticism.

The committee also recommended a one state-one vote system which cannot properly be implemented in India. The cause of such denials reflects from the instances where some politically stronger states would dominate over the weaker states which with time encourages corruption. Reliance can be placed on one country-one vote system which was adopted by FIFA that led to 2015 FIFA corruption scam in which countries had very little or no football activities were accused of taking the bribe from FIFA officials and countries with more football activity, to vote in a specified pattern. In this way, votes of politically weak states can be tampered by stronger states resulting in an undesirable situation. In the context of India, the votes for politically weak states such as North Eastern states can be tampered by politically strong states such as Gujarat and Maharashtra. Therefore, one state-one vote cannot be implemented in a country like India.  

Among all, the most important recommendation proposed by the committee was to legalize betting in India. Legalizing betting might fetch a lot of revenues to the government and will pull up the GDP of our nation but it will also significantly increase match-fixing in the game of cricket. Even if the government has not legalized betting, it is still prevalent in the nation. As per the recent survey, betting money involved in IPL-7 and IPL-8 were around 7000 crores and 12000 crores, respectively. Hence it is very much evident how the black money earned through illegalization of betting led to flow in the economy.

Furthermore, the exigency of having the Controller and Auditor General (CAG) as a nominee in the managing committee of the society was also felt by the committee. But that proposition, later on, had been termed as contradictory to the constitution of BCCI which does not permit a non-member to be involved in the managing committee meeting of the society. Also, in accordance with the rules of ICC if the governmental representatives are included as a full-time member of the Board then ICC holds the power of derecognizing such domestic cricket board of a country and at a global level, ICC will treat CAG representation as a governmental interference.

The committee also strongly recommended to curb down the frequency as well as the number of advertisement shown on a television during a cricket match live telecast. According to Lodha panel, the advertisement should be telecast only during the drinks break session and unnecessary advertisement after every over and fall of wicket should be avoided. But in reciprocal to that recommendation BCCI was of the view that minimizing the frequency would affect the income of board which would lead to heavy losses. The BCCI being a self-funded organization does not depend on the government for any source of revenue and such an act would hamper its earnings. The revenue earned from such advertisements directly gets invested by BCCI in conducting their various training programs in small towns and villages to search for talented players. Therefore, this recommendation of the committee will restrict the funding of the board and it would be difficult for the board to perform its function.

The Board did not even welcome the proposals of the committee regarding the capping of the age limit to 70 years for the officers of Board. As per the Board, an office-bearer gets elected through a democratic format hence such proposal would give birth to the criticism. In board’s view, if a member attains the age of 70 years that doesn’t make him inefficient to perform the given task by any stretch of an assumption. Therefore implementing such recommendation would lead them to a situation where very few people with good experience will be left in the committee which will further hamper the working of the committee.

Many news agencies, NGOs, and social groups have demanded to include BCCI under the purview of RTI but the board always had the ways to deal with it. The same was also recommended by the Lodha committee in order to make BCCI publicly accountable and also to build public trust in the working of the board. However, the BCCI was of opinion that mere performing public function would not be a sufficient cause to make RTI applicable on it. The board stated that it is a society registered in Tamil Nadu and did not receive any funding from the government.

Suggestive Measures

	Suggestions on the Recommendations
1	Threshold limit for Legalizing Betting
2	Nomination of CAG to be the Managing Committee
3	Advertisements after every 5 Overs
4	Sports Bodies using ‘India’ as the name must come under RTI
5	Separate Body for IPL
6	Participation of Women in BCCI
7	Introducing an Increased Funding Plan
8	Ceiling Limits for BCCI Members

In view of the misconducts executed by BCCI, Indian Judiciary already took the initiative to curb down the monopolistic approach of the Board by strengthening the recommendations put forth by Lodha panel. Apart from the same, there are few suggestions in the following which can be considered in line with Lodha committee’s recommendation to help in improvising BCCI’s working:

1. In terms of legalization of betting in our nation, there must be a threshold limit for a person to limit the amount of betting. Only the registered individuals through their authorized online accounts can have the access to such practices but at the same time, proper rules should be drafted considering the same. Betting shall be legalized except for players, BCCI officials or administrators covered under BCCI and IPL regulations.
2. The nomination of CAG as the managing committee member of the society can be made without affecting any international obligations if no voting rights are assigned to CAG. By this way, CAG can become a member of the Board to ensure that proper books of accounts are being maintained and also India will not violate any international agreement.
3. The advertisements during a live telecast of cricket match shall be allowed after every five overs, fall of the wicket, drinks or lunch, instead of ad breaks given after an over is finished.
4. Apart from it, all the sports bodies which enjoy the right to use ‘India’ as the team’s name should come under the purview of RTI. It is performing a public function of selecting the national and international team to represent the nation on a global front. It regulates cricket in India of all forms at all levels. The decision of Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649 requires some reconsideration on the ground that it performs the public function involving millions of funds and arbitrary using its power in recent past. Therefore, it should be considered State under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
5. In terms of managing the affairs of IPL, there should be a separate body which needs to be constituted by a completely different set of rules. And this new committee for IPL should include the members from CAG which will keep the check and balances on the financial transactions.
6. The women must have a representation in BCCI. Also in terms of promoting women empowerment and their participation in BCCI on a larger scale, there must be few seats reserved for women.
7. The board must introduce an increased funding plan for promoting women cricket team and providing them with the proper infrastructure, equipment and experienced coaches for the training. The women team has always been subjected to ignorances which resulted in failing to draw the attention of mass media. The training programs and talent hunts in smaller towns for women cricket team should be encouraged.
8. There must be a ceiling limit for all the members of BCCI whoever are holding the post for multiple terms and various occasions. A stipulated tenure must be framed in order to give chances to the other members. The board must set a complete list of qualification and disqualification for a person to be a member and its removal.

Supreme Court’s observation on the recommendations

Recently on the very date of August 9, the Supreme Court cropped up with its latest iteration in its verdicts on the affairs of the Board of Control for Cricket in India [BCCI]. On a disappointed note, the judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices DY Chandrachud and AM Khanwilkar, scraped off a few of the more path-breaking recommendations proposed by the Lodha Committee, which the court itself had endorsed in July 2016 and at the same time did endorse few of them. Let’s start with a with the ones which have already been scraped off by the apex court.

	Lodha Committee Recommendations Supreme Court did not uphold
1	One-State-One-Vote
2	Undergo a cooling-off period
3	Modifies number from 3 to 5

One-State-One-Vote

Among other pronouncements, the court has now scrapped the one-state-one-vote policy that the committee had seen as the backbone for a new constitution of the BCCI. In its place, the court has confirmed the voting power of not only all the existing associations in Maharashtra and Gujarat that are the Maharashtra, Mumbai and Vidarbha cricket associations and the Gujarat, Baroda and Saurashtra cricket associations but has also affirmed the votes available to the government bodies, the Services Sports Control Board, the Railway Sports Promotion Board and the Association of Indian Universities.

“To utilize territoriality as a basis of exclusion is problematic because it ignores history and the contributions made by such associations to the development of cricket and its popularity,” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who wrote the judgment, reasoned.

Undergo a cooling-off period

Perhaps even more significantly, though, the court has watered down the much-lauded cooling-off period suggested in the draft constitution that the Committee of Administrators appointed by the court had drawn-up. This clause was included at the behest of the Lodha Panel, which had recommended that the tenure of each term for office bearers of the BCCI and the various state associations should be three years and that there should be a mandatory “cooling off period” after each term; that is, an office-bearer who holds a post for three consecutive years would be disentitled from contesting a succeeding election to any post either within the BCCI or within any of the various state associations.

The judgment, authored by Justice Chandrachud, now makes it clear that while the term of office shall be as suggested in the draft constitution, the cooling off period of three years shall apply only when an individual has held the post of an office bearer for two consecutive terms either in a state association or in the BCCI or in a combination of both.

Modifies the number of selectors from 3 to 5

The court introduced a modification in the very number of selectors which has now following such been recommended to be 5 instead of current 3. These 5 numbers of selectors came into being with the realization that a “board based selection committee” was required to push the prodigious talent pool spread across the country.

“The vast territory of the nation, the extent of cricket being played both at the national and international level, the need for selectors to travel extensively to spot talent from the pool of cricketers and the need to encourage both domestic and international cricket, are considerations which persuade us to accept the plea for modification in regard to the number of selectors to five,” Justice Chandrachud observed.

As similar as these changes which can be reckoned as an undermining of the Lodha Panel’s suggestions, we can at the same time stress upon the suggestions proposed by the committee that has been approved by the apex court.

Disqualification of persons from being an office bearer

The Supreme Court has kept alive key clauses suggested by the panel towards disqualification of persons from being an office bearer or a member of the governing council or any other committee, or as a representative to the International Cricket Council.

This now means that persons above the age of 70 years, ministers, government servants and others holding public office, persons serving as office bearers of other sports federations, and persons charged by a court of law of having committed any criminal offence are all disqualified from contesting for any post within the BCCI or any of its state associations. Also disqualified are persons who have served terms as an office bearer of the BCCI or any of the state associations for a cumulative period of nine years. These requirements, the court has held, serve as important safeguards against the development of vested personal interests and against the concentration of power in a few hands, encouraging thereby a “dispersal of authority,” and the creation of a “wider body of experienced administrators.”

• Even before the verdict of August 9 ruling, many of the other suggestions of the Lodha Panel had already been finally approved by the court itself. These incorporate, for instance, recommendations towards the establishment of an apex council of nine members comprising three independent persons, with two from a newly constituted “players association,” and, at least, one woman—overseen by a reputable chief executive officer—to conduct the day-to-day administration of cricket in the country; the creation of a sound set of principles to remove conflicts of interest that had hitherto plagued the sport, including a reduction in the participation of those entrenched in politics; and, crucially, the introduction of a wall divorcing the management of the IPL from the BCCI.

Ending Note

Cricket can no longer be termed as the gentleman’s game as the essence of the gentleman has however been eroded. The existence of IPL might have given fame, success, and money to many upcoming players but it has also introduced avenues for gambling, spot-fixing, and underworld activities in the country. To overcome such problems, Indian judiciary has made several attempts to develop sports law in the nation and one of such attempt was the appointment of Lodha committee. Lodha committee has come up with tremendous recommendations which will not only put checks and balances on the working of the board but will also change its performance. Still, the legality of some recommendations can be challenged and the demand for reconsideration is to be served in order to introduce a better law in the nation.

Opposing the said recommendation is obviously not a viable option for the Board’s point of view instead, they must adopt the necessary modifications for the betterment of cricket in India. The disputes between Lodha committee and BCCI must be addressed by putting emphasis on reforming cricket by removing some necessary evils such as poor governance, match fixing, etc. The report is just a beginning step in reforming the sports and if accepted then will set a benchmark for reforms in other sports.