Supreme Court firm on age cap of 70 for BCCI administrators

The Supreme Court has pulled up the BCCI for resisting the Lodha committee recommendation to cap the age of office bearers at 70.

To strengthen its argument, the two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and justice Ibrahim Kalifullah cited the example of Jagmohan Dalmiya, who the court said could not communicate properly while he was BCCI president from March 2015 until his death in September at the age of 75.

"Why do you want to hold on to the reign for such a long time. Even the Supreme Court judges retire at 65," Thakur was quoted by theTelegraph as saying to Arvind Datar, senior legal counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA). "You have been given five more years. You had a president who could not speak, could not communicate. Those who elected him did not see whom they were electing? These days, even in politics people are retiring."

The court also rejected the proposal put forth by the Odisha Cricket Association, which suggested older administrators could be asked to take medical tests instead of enforcing the 70-year age cap. "You are trying to suggest that one should take tablets for headache. But the problem is that the disease here is deep-rooted," Thakur told KV Vishwanathan, the OCA lawyer, according the Telegraph. "The [Lodha] committee was formed to find a solution. Otherwise diseases like match-fixing and all could continue. It is a disease that can't be cured by medicine.

"It needs surgery. Lodha committee was competent and committed to perform the surgery. But mistakes can be made by anyone, especially when we go by perceptions. If a society wants to run itself in a healthy manner, the person running the show should be healthy and preferably less than 70. After a certain age they (persons who are above 70) must retire and do something else. They cannot head a society managing sports. For healthy management, they must quit at a certain point. The reforms are meant to make the management more responsive to the needs of the game."

Datar said the court could not restrict the rights of state associations, which enjoy their fundamental right to carry out activities as provided under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The court responded by asking Datar which of the recommendations were "perverse and un-implementable".

"All of you agreed that the recommendations are good, well-meaning and made in good faith. What is the harm in implementing them? If the recommendations are not outrageous, then let them be implemented. Our directions for the implementation of reforms in the BCCI will remain in force till Parliament enacts a legislation. We will say so in our judgment," the court told Datar, according to the Times of India

Datar argued that the Lodha panel had been formed to look into allegations of spot-fixing, but it had gone on to recommend structural reforms. "This is like a doctor detecting a tumour in a body and then, while removing it, slashing and bruising the entire body," Datar said. The court responded with, "spot-fixing and betting were only symptoms of a dreaded disease deep inside the BCCI. That is why the Lodha panel was set up to diagnose the disease and suggest remedial measures. It has now suggested remedial measures."

When Vishwanathan said bringing in weaker teams due to the "territorial classification" based on the one-state-one-vote recommendation would result in a weaker domestic completion, the court disagreed. "What is your problem, weaker teams will get beaten? You don't want to play against Nagaland or Sikkim? You don't want to waste your time. People used to laugh when Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan started playing. But look at the turnaround in these teams. Just see what is Bangladesh doing," the PTI reported.