Supreme Court allows amendment to BCCI Constitution on cooling-off period enabling Sourav Ganguly, Jay Shah to continue in office

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the modification of the constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) with regard to a mandatory three-year cooling-off period after one term for office-bearers [The Board of Control for Cricket in India v Cricket Association of Bihar]..On the existing cooling-off period rule that called for it to be applied after one three-year term at the BCCI, a bench of justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli stated in its order, "This is unduly stringent and needs to be modified with regard to the purpose with which cooling off periods were introduced. We're of the view that the proposed amendment would not dilute the spirit and object of the cooling-off period, if implemented after an individual has completed two terms at either BCCI or State federations. We therefore accept this amendment."This would mean that BCCI President Sourav Ganguly and Secretary Jay Shah will be able to continue in office..In fact, the bench at the outset today noted the anomaly with the proposed amendments as they are currently worded, which would enable one to keep standing for State and BCCI administration posts provided they alternate every six years."Then that cycle will go on, two terms in each. We'll exclude that. We'll say someone from State association, as per what the SG was saying, can apply for two terms in BCCI. Else cooling off [will be] applied if someone has 6 years in either.".In its order, the bench also accepted amendments pertaining to replacing disqualifications of those with criminal charges (changed to those with convictions), and those from public office (to only include ministers and public servants). It also allowed cricketers involved in other sports to contest polls for office-bearer posts..Background and previous arguments.The Constitution drawn up based on the Justice RM Lodha Committee recommendations mandates that any individual, who has been an office bearer in any State cricket association or the BCCI or a combination of both for six years, should undergo a three-year cooling-off period before such person can contest to become an office bearer again.This would mean that both Ganguly and Shah would have had to to demit office since both have completed six years, having earlier served as office bearers with the Cricket Association of Bengal and the Gujarat Cricket Association respectively.The Supreme Court had in July appointed Senior Counsel and former Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh as Amicus Curiae in the case..Yesterday, the Bench had orally indicated that it would allow two consecutive terms for office-bearers of the BCCI and the State cricket associations before the three-year cooling-off period mandated by Justice Lodha committee kicks in.The Court had, however, posed queries on the proposal regarding the need to do away with the 70-year age limit for office bearers and International Cricket Council (ICC) representatives, as well as those on doing away with disqualifications on having criminal charges and holding public office or controlling another sports' administrative body. .Today's hearing.Justice Kohli, after hearing Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, noted that a 12-year total term across BCCI and State associations would be possible as administrators can escape the cooling-off on switching to the BCCI."To address that concern, we can say after two State terms cooling off will be must, and after two State terms only one BCCI term can be allowed before cooling off," the Bench suggested..Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that a BCCI office-bearer post is not a largesse but something that is won through election."They have to get confidence of voters, so a 6-year term is not long." The Bench then suggested that after completing two terms, cooling-off periods of three years will be uniformly applied for that level. After 12 years, the period would be applicable for both State and BCCI posts, the judges orally indicated. .On the provision of anyone with criminal charges not being able to contest, the Bench remarked, "We'll say convicted of offence not involving punishment of just a fine.".After the counsel for the respondent continued voicing their opposition to the proposed amendments, the Bench raised a question of their locus standi and asked them for specific objections. After hearing him at length and calling his arguments 'spirited', Justice Chandrachud remarked,"At the end of the day we have the highest respect for the [Lodha] committee, but we are not cricketers and are regulating the affairs of an autonomous body, and must give them leeway so long as they aren't going against the spirit of our judgment ... Indian cricket is successful not because of judicial review but because of its administration". .The judgment.The Bench in its order discussed counsel's justification to do away with certain clauses through the proposed amendments that have been accepted. The order notes that the allowing only those convicted to contest has been proposed, as opposed to those with charges, 'to protect office bearers who may suffer frivolous prosecution'. Along with the same and the submission that disqualifications for holding public office should only apply for ministers and public servants, the Bench ruled,"These changes do not detract from the spirit of our original judgment, and are hence accepted.".[Follow our coverage of today's hearing].[Read judgment]