States with multiple association affiliated to BCCI can rotate membership: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has opined that states with multiple cricket associations affiliated to BCCI can adopt a rotation policy for full membership in the cricket board to allay their concerns over the Lodha panel suggestion to implement one association, one state, one vote principle.

“What about rotational membership?” Chief Justice of India TS Thakur asked as senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA), on Monday when the latter objected to implementation of one state, one vote.

Maharashtra and Gujarat have four and three cricket associations, respectively, affiliated to the cash-rich Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI).

Baroda Cricket Association, which will be reduced to being an affiliate member if the proposal is implemented, has been vociferously been protesting against it on the ground that state boundaries need not necessarily be the cricketing boundary. The association had reached where it has because of its cricketing activity, Sibal said. “Why should I lose my full membership? How does it help anything?”

He insisted that the court could not treat unequals equally. New full members of BCCI will come from small states like Mizoram and Meghalaya where cricket is not popular. “If I lose my full membership I lose the right to be part of any BCCI committee such as finance,” Sibal said. He, however, suggested that none of the different associations in a state were against each other.

This prompted the special bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice FMI Kalifullah, to observe that since they were all working together, they could hold the full membership by turns and take care of each other’s interests.

At another point, Sibal contended that one state, one vote policy would leave associations open to a whole lot of political pressure. He, however, refused to elaborate on this point. “From where is the pressure coming? What is the political pressure?” Justice Thakur sought to know, but Sibal sidestepped the question citing adverse publicity.

The top court also rejected Sibal’s arguments that associations were private bodies and were not amenable to “judicial diktats”. One state, one vote policy was designed to usher in transparency, the Chief Justice of India remarked. “There are certain malpractices that the people perceive in the BCCI. You cannot have transparency without making structural changes,” he said.