India’s Supreme Court has criticised the BCCI’s method of disbursing funds to state associations saying it was being done without any particular mechanism
Nagraj Gollapudi05-Apr-2016India’s Supreme Court has heavily criticised the BCCI’s method of disbursing funds to state associations saying it was being done without any particular mechanism. In a brief hearing related to the implementation of the Lodha panel recommendations that lasted less than 90 minutes, the court also turned down the BCCI’s request to review the ‘one state one vote’ recommendation made by the Lodha panel in January this year. The next date of hearing has been set for April 8.In the previous hearing held on March 3, the two-judge bench of the court comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla had asked the BCCI and state associations to submit audited accounts of expenses incurred over the past five years through separate affidavits. After going through the chart submitted by the BCCI on the various allocations it makes to its members, the court observed that certain bigger members like the Mumbai Cricket Association and Gujarat Cricket Association were being allocated sums to the tune of Rs 60 crore while paying no attention at all to the development of the game in smaller member states.”The mandate of the board is to promote cricket all over India and not only in Mumbai and Gujarat. Cricketing talents are available not only in Mumbai but also in other parts of the country . You have done nothing to nurse and nourish the talent in smaller states as 11 states got zero contribution from you over the years. You have made a mutual benefit society . It is like you show me the face and I will determine how much you should get,” the court said, according to the Questioning the discrepancies in the board’s process of distributing funds to member associations, Chief Justice Thakur reportedly stated the board was “practically corrupting persons by not demanding how the money is spent”.”You function like show me the face; I will make the payment… [The] Impression that one gets is that you are practically corrupting the persons by not demanding how the money is spent… [It’s] like the moment you want a vote and their hands will go up,” Justice TS Thakur was quoted as saying by the .The member associations without BCCI funding
Cricket Club of India
Railway Sports Promotion Board
Services Sports Control Board
National Sports Club, Kolkata
Arunachal Pradesh Cricket Association
Meghalaya Cricket Association
Chhattisgarh State Cricket Sangh
Manipur Cricket Association
Nagaland Cricket Association
Bihar Cricket Association
After reading the BCCI affidavit on distribution of funds, the court asked the board counsel, KK Venugopal, why 11 member associations had not received any funds in the last five years. Venugopal explained that some states do not have any cricketing infrastructure. However, Nalini Chidambaram, arguing on behalf of the Cricket Association of Bihar who is the original petitioner, said that the BCCI was doing nothing to develop cricket in the smaller states, like those in the north-eastern region of India. “It is a vicious circle. They don’t give funds therefore there is no cricketing activity,” Chidambaram said. The court upheld that argument and asked Venugopal why the eleven associations had to “go begging” to the board for funds.”Eleven go begging for assistance. These 11 go without a penny. Huge amounts like Rs. 572 crore are distributed every year. Next year it may be over Rs. 1000 crore. Should your system of disbursement not be perfect?” Chief Justice Thakur asked Venugopal.The court then asked why a state like Gujarat was getting Rs 60 crore while Bihar did not get any funds. Venugopal said Bihar had not submitted its accounts and hence the BCCI had stopped funds to its associate member. The court was curious about why a smaller state like Goa had received close to Rs 60 crore in the last five years.”Eleven states here have zeros against their names. Goa gets Rs. 57 crore while Chhattisgarh gets Rs. 1.47 crore. You see your whole mandate is to promote the game all over the country. The passion for the game is spread across the country,” Chief Justice Thakur pointed out.He also asked why the Railway Sports Promotion Board, which has the voting rights, did not receive any funds. When Venugopal explained that the RSPB did not have an international stadium, the court asked how Tripura, which had no international stadium, deserved to get Rs 60 crore as listed by the BCCI.Tasked by the Supreme Court to provide recommendations on changes to the BCCI’s constitution and manner of functioning, the Lodha panel had submitted its report in January 2016 and had proposed sweeping changes. The court then directed the BCCI to respond to the report and in March, the board expressed its reservations on various recommendations made by the panel. One of the recommendations that the BCCI is opposing is the ‘one state, one vote’ proposal, which suggests that one association from a state should be given a vote.The court reminded the BCCI that the Lodha committee is not an ordinary panel. Chief Justice Thakur explained that the court had not constituted a committee of government secretaries or any other officials. Instead the committee comprised a former Chief Justice of India (RM Lodha) and two former Supreme Court judges (Ashok Bhan and RV Raveendran) who had had extensive discussions and deliberations before arriving at the final recommendations.”This committee is not an ordinary one peopled by government officials for you to complain about,” Chief Justice Thakur said. “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.”