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.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS – II [FAQS-II] – 12.1.2017”

  1. Can an office bearer (elected post) who completed 9 years or more in a District Cricket Association contest election in State Cricket Association for an office bearer post ?. Or can he contest for the said post after 3 years of cooling period time or without cooling period or does he disqualified ?

    Like

  2. In Kerala Cricket Association, most of the members (apart from the Office Bearers) are those who have been there for ages (in many cases, more than 20 years at a stretch)representing their respective districts. If such people are now elevated to KCA office bearer ship, it will defeat the very purpose of the reforms. This can be solved by fixing a ceiling of 9 years (apart from 9 yrs in district association) for serving the state as representative from district associations.

    Like

  3. SIR AS A CRICKET FAN I WANT CRICKET TO BE FEATURED IN OLYMPICS.BCCI COULD TAKE A LEAD ROLE UNDER YOUR GUIDANCE. I HOPE THAT BANISHED PEOPLE DON’T EVER MAKE A COME BACK WHO WERE THERE IN BCCI FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT. DONT LET THEM MAKE A COME BACK. IF THEY PLAN TO CREATE A DIFFERENT LEAGUE. STOP THEM. DONT LET THEM USE TRICOLOUR.AS A CRICKET FAN I WANT CRICKET TO BE SPREAD IN EASTERN INDIA TOO. PLEASE SIR MAKE SURE MORE TEAM PLAYING NEXT ICC WORLD CUP.BCCI COULD TAKE INITIATIVE. LET BCCI GROW RICHER.SO THAT THEY SPREAD CRICKET. SAVE CRICKET. LET IT TOUCH THE SKY UNDER YOUR GUIDANCE.IT IS A PRIVATE BODY. BUT IT USE TRICOLOUR. IT IS FEATURED AS TEAM INDIA. MAKE WAY FOR GOVT FUND IF POSSIBLE.

    Like

  4. will the present selection committee members for state associations be treated as office bearers,and they will be disqualified for futher selection.

    Like

  5. An executive committee member of HCA, elected to the committee on 7/9/2014 for a 2 year term and after having served the committee for 15 months was unconstitutionally suspended by the President for raising voice against his administrative and financial irregularities and unilateral functioning ,without referring the matter to the disciplinary committee and approval of the Executive committee. .
    The Hon’ble court had however vide a DECREETAL ORDER suspended the suspension letter of HCA 29/8/2016.
    From the date of election i.e 7/9/2014 till the date of suspension i.e 26/12/2015,he had served the committee for 15 months only.
    Please clarify can he now contest the HCA elections slated for 17/01/2017,if yes for how long can he serve the Apex council

    Like

    1. http://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/lodha-reforms-few-bcci-state-units-planning-to-file-for-recall-in-supreme-court-order-on-tenure-4477410/

      Lodha reforms: Few BCCI state units planning to file for recall of Supreme Court order on tenure

      The state units have many of their senior office-bearers who now have had to demit office due to cap of nine-year tenure.

      By: PTI | New Delhi | Published:January 16, 2017 9:11 pm

      Four units of BCCI – Hyderabad, Tamil Nadu, Goa and Madhya Pradesh – have filed separate pleas in the Supreme Court asking directions on its January 3 verdict, which disqualifies any office-bearer which has completed nine years in state administration.

      The state units have many of their senior office-bearers who now have had to demit office due to cap of nine-year tenure, which earlier during a July 18 Apex Court order was stated as cumulative period of 9+9 years taking both state and BCCI tenure into account.

      The Lodha Committee in their second set of FAQs had mentioned that it will be a cumulative tenure of nine years which includes both state and board tenures.

      “Yes, we have sent a plea to the Honourable Supreme Court seeking directions on the tenure. We have also filed a separate plea about HCA elections being ordered by the lower court,” HCA secretary K John Manoj told PTI on Monday.

      When asked about the recall petition, Tamil Nadu CA joint secretary RI Palani, who is currently in charge of the state unit said:”We are planning to send an application in this regard.”
      It has been learnt that the appeal has already been filed.

      TNCA has been badly hurt as the verdict meant end of tenure for N Srinivasan along with his confidant and secetary general Kashi Viswanathan.

      MPCA on Monday filed plea through their counsel Pragya Baghel.

      Petitioner in the case Aditya Verma claimed that even Goa Cricket Association has filed for a “recall”.

      “I was amazed that Goa Cricket Association has filed for a recall of the January 3 verdict as few months back their top office bearers were arrested on corruption charges. Still they don’t want any propreity in their association,” Verma told PTI.

      Like

  6. Dear Sir,

    Please accept my sincere thanks and appreciation for bringing more democracy in the BCCI voting system state wise. I am sure this will bring more harmony and an unbiased approach in selection.

    1) For a State vote, please confirm if only the District level members will have a chance to vote instead of City club Secretaries.

    2) And, for a District Vote, please confirm if the Taluk level voting system gets introduced instead of Club Secretaries in Districts.

    3) This way the States and Districts can choose a player without any bias.

    Sorry if you consider that this will be a micro approach.

    Kindly clarify

    Like

  7. http://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/bcci-vs-lodha-supreme-court-sees-red-over-kerala-unit-lawyer-s-bloody-comment/story-yOO1UyE1ikuEdywaix8uMK.html

    BCCI vs Lodha: Supreme Court sees red over Kerala unit lawyer’s ‘bloody’ comment
    Emotions ran high during Supreme Court’s hearing on roping in new administrators for BCCI, as a Kerala Cricket Association lawyer’s use of foul language was rebuked by the judges

    Updated: Jan 20, 2017 21:59 IST

    Ousted cricket bosses may be bristling after they were stripped of their posts following the Lodha Committee report, but the lawyer of one frustrated unit took the frustration too far in the Supreme Court on Friday.

    The apex court was holding a hearing in connection with roping in new administrators recommended by senior lawyers Gopal Subramaniam and Anil Divan when pent-up anger boiled over for a lawyer representing the Kerala Cricket Association (KCA).

    The outburst was from senior lawyer Vikas Singh. “We have spent more than Rs 3 crore on the Lodha Committee, and look, they are deciding our future. This is bloody our money.”

    The intemperate language left the bench of Justices Deepak Mishra, AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud shocked.

    “How you can use such language in this court? I feel sorry that you have used such words,” said Justice Mishra. “We are declining to hear you, not today.”

    An upset Justice Chandrachud interjected, “People don’t use such language even in the district courts of Uttar Pradesh.”

    Justice Mishra then turned to Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, asking what he thought of the counsel’s language.

    “This is absolutely unacceptable,” was the response. The AG was present in court to represent the Railways, All India Universities and Services cricket teams.

    Vikas Singh apologised, only to invite more ire. Justice Mishra said, “Invention of the word ‘sorry’ is to teach a human to think and speak, not speak and then think.”

    Earlier, BCCI lawyer Kapil Sibal argued there was an important meeting of the ICC in February and since there was no eligible BCCI official to attend, the Board could lose a lot of money.

    Anil Divan said tongue-in-cheek that ICC president, Shashank Manohar, could negotiate for the Board as he was a former BCCI president.

    Like

  8. http://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/bcci-v-lodha-panel-gopal-subramanium-wants-sc-to-give-interim-body-ipl-charge/story-pnJ8AaT5Cjq4mlYJHphdBK.html

    BCCI v Lodha Panel: Gopal Subramanium wants SC to give interim body IPL charge

    Updated: Jan 21, 2017 23:57 IST

    A forensic audit of the BCCI’s and its stats units’ accounts for the last three years, in consultation with the nominee of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

    A day after attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi, sought the Supreme Court to allow a wider debate on the Lodha Committee report and refer it to a larger bench, the amicus curiae issued a counter on Saturday, seeking directions to speed up the reform process.

    In an application to the Supreme Court, Gopal Subramanium, appointed amicus curiae (court’s friend) to assist in implementing the Lodha report, sought urgent directions to prevent any individual or cricket body from delaying the reform process.

    The opening lines of the document read: “The application seeks urgent directions from the court which has become necessary to ensure its July 18, 2016 judgement directing implementation of the Lodha panel report is efficacious and the game does not suffer during the transition period.”

    The apex court has been requested to pass orders on 11 areas, including a directive that the interim administrators, whose names the apex court is due to announce on Tuesday, will run this year’s IPL.

    Subramanium wants direction to prevent any individual or state association from blocking the use of stadiums, and hand control, including stadiums, of state associations refusing to implement the Lodha report in full to administrators to be named by the court, till fresh elections are held.

    The petition also wants the court directive to ensure prompt payments to players, support staff and vendors without any interference and a forensic audit of the BCCI’s and its stats units’ accounts for the last three years, in consultation with the nominee of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

    He also wants administration of units refusing to give undertakings to implement the Lodha report to the interim administrators till fresh elections are held.

    The amicus curiae also wants the interim panel to nominate the BCCI representative for International Cricket Council meetings. The ousted BCCI officials have raised concerns that India, despite accounting for 70 percent of global revenue earnings, may go without an experienced hand to argue its case.

    It also wants the mandate to the Lodha Committee giving it overarching supervision over the implementation of the reforms to remain.

    Like

  9. respected Lodha committee And Its respected Secretary ,

    your work start now , with the appointment of Administrators in BCCI by Hon’ble apex court today on 30th jan 2017 ,

    1- this administrators committee has to ensure that both of your earlier timelines are implemented in full at the earliest .

    2- Forensic audit of BCCI and all state units by respected CAG India for last 10 years to be done at the earliest , which will certainly may tumble lots of skeleton from the cupboards

    3 – We hope that your committee all hard work will pay now rich dividend by 100% implementation of the verdict dated 18th july 2016 under the supervision and timelines of your committee

    4 – you will continue all the correspondence and timelines on this website immediately for 100 % transparency and accountability

    regards

    Like

    1. http://www.firstpost.com/sports/vinod-rai-helmed-4-member-bcci-administrative-panel-comes-under-the-shock-and-awe-category-3239248.html

      Rai who has rich experience in exposing scams relating to 2G spectrum , Commonwealth Games , Indian coal allocation and the controversial purchase of aircrafta, among others, is expected to sniff out any irregularities in BCCI and its affiliated units’ accounts. Both Limaye and he would be on top of the accounts, it is expected, and would usher in a cleaner, more transparent system.

      Like

  10. Pallav vijayvargiya

    You wested time there

    Lodha commitee rules and regulation

    Only state associations include district associations
    you have information plz
    Tell me there

    U have dont know plz go away
    And work your work

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s