The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the irrational method adopted by the BCCI for distribution of funds to state cricket associations and in doing so the BCCI had created a ‘mutually beneficial society’. A bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla hearing the recommendations of Justice Lodha Committee report said “the impression one gets is that once the BCCI gives money to state associations without any rational basis, they in a way corrupt them.
“The BCCI must have distributive justice — why are 11 states penniless Why should these states go begging You function like show me the face; I will make the payment... Impression that one gets is that you are practically corrupting the persons by not demanding how the money is spent. It is like the moment you want a vote and their hands will go up,” Chief Justice Thakur remarked.
The bench told senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the BCCI, the records of payments made to certain member states like Gujarat, Goa and Tripura are several fold higher than to some 11 other states likes Bihar and Chhattisgarh, which go around with a “begging bowl”. Huge amounts like Rs 572 crore are distributed every year. Next year it may be over Rs 1,000 crore. Should your system of disbursement not be perfect ” Eleven of the 29 states have been allocated practically zero funds, the apex court noted, which doesn’t help the development of the game in the country.
The CJI said, “Out of 29 states, 11 are begging for money, this is not good. You allot money without demanding explanation, which is basically corrupting them. How do you expect neglected states to develop if you don’t give them money For six years, not a penny given to Bihar while Gujarat got Rs 60 crores. You have done nothing to promote the game.”
Venugopal defended the funds allocation saying, “We have started activities in Union Territories to promote the game. We gave help to all Affiliate and Associate Members apart from Full Members. Arunachal Pradesh and Bihar did not give audited accounts, that’s why they did not get funds from 2010.”
When Venugopal voiced the board’s objections to at least 10 recommendations of the Lodha panel like one state one vote policy, the CJI observed, “This committee is not an ordinary one consisting of government officials for you to complain about. A former CJI headed the committee and we repose faith in their findings, which are a result of extensive deliberations with a broad spectrum of people spread through a year.”
Venugopal submitted that the Lodha Committee neither informed nor sought the views of past or present BCCI office-bearers about its proposed recommendations despite interactions the panel had had with them. The Committee never gave them an opportunity to put forward views on the recommendations before they became part of the final report.
When senior counsel Ashok Desai, appearing for the Punjab Cricket Association objected to certain recommendations, the CJI quipped “The Justice Lodha Committee has not changed the rules of the game. It does not say that there should be seven balls in an over. It only recommends change in the persons managing cricket administration.”
