FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS – II [FAQS-II] – 12.1.2017

FAQs – PART TWO

In the wake of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders dated 2.1.2017 and 3.1.2017, a large number of emails and missives have been received by the Committee from representatives of the BCCI, State Associations, journalists and members of the public. As it would not be possible to answer each of them, this second set of FAQs is being issued by the Committee so that there may be sufficient clarity on issues.

  1. As per the first set of FAQs [6.9.2016], the Committee had stated that the 9 year disqualification for Office Bearers applied separately to offices in the State and offices in the BCCI. Does this position continue after the Supreme Court’s order dated 2.1.2017 and 3.1.2017?

THIS POSITION HAS BEEN NOW ALTERED. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 2.1.2017 AS AMENDED BY THE ORDER DATED 3.1.2017, AN INDIVIDUAL IS DISQUALIFIED FROM BEING THE OFFICE BEARER OF THE BCCI OR THE STATE/MEMBER ASSOCIATION IF HE / SHE HAS BEEN AN OFFICE BEARER OF THE BCCI OR THE STATE/MEMBER ASSOCIATION FOR 9 YEARS. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE WHO HAS BEEN THE OFFICE BEARER OF A STATE ASSOCIATION FOR 9 YEARS IS DISQUALIFIED FROM RETURNING TO CRICKET ADMINISTRATION, EITHER AT THE BCCI OR AT ANY STATE ASSOCIATION. SIMILARLY, ONE WHO HAS BEEN AN OFFICE BEARER AT THE STATE FOR 5 YEARS AND THEN AT THE BCCI FOR 4 YEARS IS ALSO SIMILARLY DISQUALIFIED.

  1. Can a disqualified Office Bearer act as the representative/nominee of a Member Association or the BCCI? Can such an individual discharge any other role in or on behalf of the Association or the BCCI?

IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT, A DISQUALIFIED OFFICE BEARER IS NO LONGER TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH CRICKET ADMINISTRATION. HE / SHE IS DISQUALIFIED FROM BEING A REPRESENTATIVE OR NOMINEE OF THE MEMBER ASSOCIATION OR THE BCCI AND CANNOT DISCHARGE ANY OTHER ROLE IN OR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OR THE BCCI. HE/SHE CANNOT FUNCTION WITHIN THE ASSOCIATION IN ANY PATRON OR ADVISORY CAPACITY NOR BE A MEMBER OF A COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL.

  1. Can elections be conducted for the Member Associations before the due amendments are made to their Constitutions / Bye-laws bringing them in line with the judgment?

WHILE THERE IS NO BAR TO THE HOLDING OF ELECTIONS [SUBJECT TO ORDERS OF ANY COURT], IF ANY ELECTION IS HELD WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, THEN THE SAME WILL BE TREATED AS VOID AND WITH NO LEGAL SANCTITY. THIS WOULD ALSO NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT SUCH AN ELECTION IS SUPERVISED BY AN ELECTION OFFICER AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

IT WOULD BE PRUDENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR SUCH ELECTIONS TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATORS TO BE APPOINTED BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT.

  1. In a State/Member Association, if an individual has occupied the post of Assistant Secretary, Assistant Treasurer, Director or any other post that is not defined as an ‘Office Bearer’ in the Report, then will his tenure in those posts be calculated towards the 9 year disqualification?

IF THE CONSTITUTION/BYE-LAWS OF THE STATE/MEMBER ASSOCIATION HAS DEFINED THE POST [ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ASSISTANT TREASURER, DIRECTOR, ETC.,] AS AN OFFICE BEARER POST, THEN THE TENURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL IN ANY OF THOSE POSTS WILL BE RECKONED WHILE DETERMINING WHETHER THE 9 YEAR PERIOD HAS BEEN COMPLETED. FOR EXAMPLE, IN AN ASSOCIATION WHERE THE CONSTITUTION REFERS TO THE ASSISTANT TREASURER AS AN OFFICE BEARER, IF A PERSON HAS OCCUPIED THAT POST FOR 3 YEARS AND ALSO BEEN SECRETARY FOR 6 YEARS, HE STANDS DISQUALIFIED.

  1. Will a member of the Governing Body, Managing Committee or Working Committee of a State/Member Association who has never been an office bearer also have the 9 year disqualification period apply to him?

SUCH AN INDIVIDUAL IS ELIGIBLE TO CONTEST AN OFFICE BEARER POST, UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION OR BYE-LAWS OF THE ASSOCIATION DEFINES OFFICE BEARERS TO INCLUDE THE GOVERNING BODY / MANAGING COMMITTEE / WORKING COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

  1. If a State/Member Association was earlier an Associate / Affiliate Member of the BCCI, and was only recently recognized as a Full Member, will the tenure of the Office Bearers for the 9 year period be calculated only from the time the Association became a Full Member.

THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TYPE OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE ASSOCIATION AND THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE OFFICE BEARER. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ASSOCIATION WAS/IS A FULL MEMBER OR ASSOCIATE/AFFILIATE MEMBER, THE ENTIRE TENURE OF THE OFFICE BEARER WILL BE CALCULATED TOWARDS THE 9 YEAR PERIOD.

HOWEVER, THIS WILL NOT APPLY TO AN ASSOCIATION WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN A MEMBER OF THE BCCI. IN SUCH AN EVENT, THE TENURE OF THE OFFICE BEARER WILL BE CALCULATED ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE AFFILIATION, UNLESS HE HAD ALREADY BEEN THE OFFICE BEARER OF ANOTHER AFFILIATED ASSOCIATION.

  1. If an individual has been an existing office bearer in a State/Member Association for 2 years, is he eligible to contest for the next elections without the 3 year cooling off period applying to him? If yes, what will be the term of his office?

IF AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, THE EXISTING OFFICE BEARER HAS NOT COMPLETED A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS, HE IS ELIGIBLE TO CONTEST THE ELECTION. HOWEVER, HE WILL NOT HAVE A FULL TERM AND WILL HAVE TO DEMIT OFFICE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE CONTINUOUS 3 YEAR PERIOD BEING COMPLETED. THIS IS TO AVOID ANY POTENTIAL ABUSE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WERE NO SUCH BAR, AN OFFICE BEARER COULD RESIGN AFTER 2 YEARS AND 9 MONTHS, AND THEN CLAIM ELIGIBILITY TO STAND AT THE NEXT ELECTION 3 MONTHS LATER ON THE GROUND THAT A NEW TERM WOULD COMMENCE.

Email to CEO, BCCI [11.1.2017]

from: Gopal Sankaranarayanan<gsanks@gmail.com>
to: Rahul Johri <rahul.johri@bcci.tv>
date: Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:15 PM
subject: Re: Selection of the Rest of India Team for Irani Trophy
Dear Mr Johri

Thank you for your mail. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee as approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be appropriate for further selections to be made by a 3 member selection Committee. You may therefore prune the selection committee accordingly to the 3 selectors with Test experience.
Warm regards
Gopal Sankaranarayanan
On 11 Jan 2017 12:10 p.m., “Rahul Johri” <rahul.johri@bcci.tv> wrote:

Dear Sir,

We have to select the Rest of India team for the Irani Trophy and this is normally done on the last day of the Final of the Ranji Trophy match ( currently in progress in Indore till 14th January ).
The selection is normally done by the Senior Selection Committee.
While vide your email to me dated the 9th of January, 2017, The Committee has authorised me to call the meeting, however please advise if we should call all 5 members or only the 3 members with test match experience, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court order.
Please advise,
Regards, Rahul.

Email to CEO, BCCI [06.01.2017]

Selection of the Indian Cricket Team for the ODI / T20 Series against England – II

Gopal Sankaranarayanan <gsanks@gmail.com> Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:08 PM
To: Rahul Johri <rjohri1@gmail.com>
Dear Mr Johri

The Committee is in receipt of your email. It is clarified that Mr.Amitabh Chaudhary stands disqualified and is no longer the joint secretary of the BCCI or an office bearer of the BCCI or a State Association by virtue of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 2.1.2017 and 3.1.2017.
As a result, he has no authority to interfere with the BCCI and it’s functioning or with the directions of this Committee. Please proceed with the Selection Committee Meeting as scheduled.
Warm regards
Gopal Sankaranarayanan
On 6 Jan 2017 1:33 p.m., “Rahul Johri” <rjohri1@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Gopal,

In line with our emails below, the selection committees for men senior and junior teams were scheduled to meet today morning/ afternoon.

However, I have received an email from Mr. Amitabh Choudhary, the Joint Secretary of BCCI requesting that the said meetings be postponed till evening so that he can convene and attend the same.

We have received differing legal advice insofar as whether a person who has completed 9 years as an office bearer of a State Association would be disqualified from being an office bearer of the BCCI in terms of the order dated 2nd January 2017 read with the order dated 3rd January 2017 and have been advised to seek a clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Although Mr. Amitabh Choudhary has completed 9 years as an office bearer of a State Association, he has not completed 9 years as an office bearer of BCCI.

In view of the above, please advise as to whether Mr. Amitabh Chowdhry stands disqualified in terms of the order dated 2nd January 2017 read with the order dated 3rd January 2017 and whether we should go ahead with the selection committee meeting as per your earlier emails or act on the instructions of Mr. Amitabh Choudhray.

An immediate response will be highly appreciated.

Regards,
Rahul.

Email to CEO, BCCI [04.01.2017]

Selection of the Indian Cricket Team for the ODI / T20 Series against England

Gopal Sankaranarayanan <gsanks@gmail.com> Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:15 PM
To: Rahul Johri <rahul.johri@bcci.tv>
Dear Rahul,

Thanks for the mail. In view of the urgency of the matter, I have been instructed to state as follows:
1. The present Committee is permitted as an exception to make the selections indicated. Going forward, it will have to be strictly in terms of the Supreme Court judgement.
2. The CEO may convene the meeting of the Selection Committee in the circumstances.
Warm regards
Gopal.
On 4 Jan 2017 11:21 a.m., “Rahul Johri” <rahul.johri@bcci.tv> wrote:

Dear Gopal,

Wish you a very happy new year.
I would like to draw the attention of the Hon’ble Justice Lodha Committee to the most pressing need that we have today, which is the selection of the Indian Cricket Team for the ODI / T20 series against England that starts on the 15th of January.
The team needs to be selected latest by the 6th of January, 2016.
The clarifications that we seek are as follows :
  • Can the current 5 member selection committee of the BCCI select the team.
  • In the absence of any office bearers can the CEO / GM Cricket Operations convene the meeting of the selectors.
We would be grateful if you could look into the matter urgently and give us the necessary direction.
We also have some other pressing issues for which we need the direction of the committee, and we are sending you the same by way of a separate email.
Regards, Rahul.

Third Status Report – 14.11.2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4235 OF 2014

In the Matter of:

Board of Control for Cricket in India                                                  …PETITIONER

Versus

Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.,                                                   …RESPONDENTS

Third Status Report submitted by the Supreme Court Committee

  1. As per the judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 18th July 2016, this Court had inter alia stated as follows:

91. In the result, we accept the report submitted by the Committee and the recommendations made therein with such modifications and clarifications as have been set out by us in the body of this judgment. Having said that we must hasten to add that the implementation of the recommendations is equally important and ought to be achieved within a reasonable period. The transition from the old to the new system recommended by the Committee shall have to be under the watchful supervision of this Court.  Constrains of time and the multiple dimensions of the recommendations made however make it difficult for us to take that supervisory role upon ourselves.  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.

92. Needless to say that the BCCI and all concerned shall cooperate and act in aid of the Committee and its directives. Should any impediments arise, the Committee shall be free to seek appropriate directions from this Court by filing a status report in that regard.”

  1. In pursuance of the directions of this Hon’ble Court, this Committee had immediately commenced the task of carrying forward the directives contained in the judgment including the fixing of clear timelines. However, as these were not complied with, certain impediments arose and a Status Report was filed on 28.09.2016 before this Hon’ble Court. On this Report, an Order was passed on 21.10.2016, with certain directions concerning the accounts and finances of the BCCI and the State Associations.
  2. Thereafter, as there was continued non-compliance by the Office Bearers of the BCCI, a Second Status Report was filed by the Committee on 7.11.2016 upon which Orders were passed by this Hon’ble Court the following day.
  3. By way of the Report dated 4.1.2016 submitted by the Committee, the recommendations of which were accepted by this Hon’ble Court, the disqualifications from being the Office Bearer of the BCCI or a State Association were as follows:
  • A person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer if he or she:
  • Is not a citizen of India;
  • Has attained the age of 70 years;
  • Is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind;
  • Is a Minister or Government Servant;
  • Holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from cricket;
  • Has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years;
  • Has been charged by a Court of law for having committed any criminal offence;
  1. Several Office Bearers at both the BCCI and the State Associations continue to hold the posts although they stand disqualified as per the Order of this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that those individuals who fall foul of these norms be declared to cease to hold office forthwith.
  2. The Committee further submits that in view of its constitution and nature, its role of supervising the implementation of reforms as per the order dated 18.07.2016 and subsequent orders be confined only to be overall policy and direction, and not the actual administration of the BCCI.
  3. While the day to day administration of the BCCI is presently carried out by the CEO and certain Managers who assist him in this regard, there would be a need to appoint an Observer who would guide the BCCI in its administration, particularly with reference to the award of contracts, transparency norms, audit, etc., for domestic, international and IPL cricket to be played hereafter. The Committee recommends that Mr.G.K.Pillai, former Union Home Secretary be appointed as the Observer, with a power to appoint Auditor and all necessary secretarial staff, assistance and remuneration as may be determined appropriate by the Committee.
  4. In view of all the above, the Committee seeks the following directions from this Hon’ble Court:
    1. Direct and declare that all Office Bearers of the BCCI and the State Associations who are disqualified by virtue of the norms at Para 4 above cease to hold office forthwith;
    2. Direct that all administrative and management matters be carried out by the CEO of the BCCI without advertence to the Office Bearers;
    3. Appointment of Mr.G.K.Pillai, former Union Home Secretary as the Observer of the BCCI to supervise the administration of the BCCI by the CEO and empower the Committee to appoint all necessary secretarial staff, assistance and fix remuneration as may be determined appropriate; and
    4. Any other direction as may be deemed fit for the implementation of the judgement dated 18.7.2016;

The Supreme Court Committee

Through its Secretary,

Gopal Sankaranarayanan

Secretary,

Supreme Court Committee

14.11.2016

 

Letters received from BCCI – 21/10, 24/10 & 28/10

Letter from Secretary, BCCI concerning IPL Media Rights of 21.10.2016
shirke-ipl

Reply from President, BCCI to Committee’s email of 24.10.2016

thakur-24-10-2016

Letter from Secretary, BCCI concerning Urgent Appointments of 28.10.2016

shirke-urgent-appointments

Letter from Secretary, BCCI concerning Domestic Season of 28.10.2016

shirke-domestic-season

Directions of the Committee – 3.11.2016

Directions of the Committee – 3.11.2016
Gopal Sankaranarayanan <gsanks@gmail.com> Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:34 AM
To: Ajay Shirke <a.shirke@bcci.tv>

Cc: Anurag Thakur <anurag@bcci.tv>, Rahul Johri <rjohri@bcci.tv>

To,

The Secretary,

BCCI.

We invite your attention to this Committee’s emails dated 24th October 2016 and 29th October 2016 calling upon the President BCCI to give an unqualified undertaking on behalf of the BCCI to unreservedly comply with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21st October 2016. The Committee is yet to receive such an undertaking. It is clarified that the undertaking is necessary to implement the directions contained in the Order of the Supreme Court, dated 21st October 2016.  The requirement for such an undertaking is not a mere formality. In the absence of the undertaking, the Committee finds it difficult to implement the order of the Supreme Court by issuing necessary directions to BCCI.

Subject to the above, the following are the remarks of the Committee on your two letters dated 28 October 2016:

I.      In your letter dated 28 October 2016 relating to Urgent Appointments, you have stated that the committee has to:

a. Appoint Vendors for IPL 2017;

b. Appoint vendors for domestic and international cricket seasons;

c. Identify and Appoint vendors for certain other services at all venues;

Please note that neither identification nor appointment of vendors or contractors is the task or function of the Committee. The Committee is only required to fix a threshold value and approving awards of contracts above such threshold value.

For the purpose of fixing the threshold value and to appoint the independent auditor, the following information is required for each of the heads referred to in your above letter:

1.   The contract value of each of the individual contracts referred to.

2.  The term of each of the proposed contracts along with when each of the existing contracts is to expire.

3.  The existing norms or guidelines relating to the appointment of vendors.

4.  The tender processes followed for the different categories of vendors.

5.   Whether the contract is done through e-auction or not.

6.  The cumulative value of contracts under each category and of all of them put together.

It is only on examining the above that the Committee would be able to fix a threshold value and also assess the nature of work involved for appointing the independent auditor and formulating his terms of engagement. All of this information shall be submitted within 5 days from today.

II.   As far as your letter dated 28 October 2016 relating to the Domestic Season is concerned, the position is as under:

a.   You have sought the Committee’s directions for release of payments to Associations in connection with players’ allowances, hotels, transport, hosting fees, etc. Paragraph 20(i) of the order dated 21st October 2016 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandates compliance by the State Associations concerned before disbursement of any funds by the BCCI. Therefore the question of the Committee issuing any directions in that behalf does not arise.

b.  With reference to the requirement for appointment of production crew, the Committee has already made the position clear in Para I above.

c.   With regard to the Associations of Orissa, Hyderabad, Jammu & Kashmir and Assam mentioned by you, you are directed to furnish the Report obtained by the BCCI from M/s. Deloitte on State Associations, as well as any undertakings submitted by the State Associations pursuant thereto. This shall be submitted within 5 days from today. It may be noted that the question of release of funds to these Associations is also governed by Para 20(i) of the Supreme Court’s order.

d.  The proposed MoU between BCCI and ECB concerns bilateral cricketing policy, the formulation of which is not a part of the mandate of the Committee. As far as payments are concerned, if they are to be made directly by the BCCI, no directions can be given by this Committee until relevant details are furnished by the BCCI.

To avoid any hindrance to the cricketing calendar and to ensure the continued enjoyment of the sport by its aficionados, the BCCI would be well advised to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its orders dated 18th July 2016, 7th October 2016 and 21st October 2016.

You may also note that this Committee is not a full-time Committee, nor does it have a Secretariat. The Members are situated in different cities and the Committee meets as and when necessary.

It is made it clear that the Committee is not an adversary as has been made out in your Indian Express interview dated 18th October 2016 and the Press Advisory dated 24th October 2016. The Committee would issue Directions from time to time in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court but not as a response to your mails.

Yours sincerely,

Gopal Sankaranarayanan

Secretary, Supreme Court Committee

CC:

1. The President, BCCI

2. The CEO, BCCI