Monetary sanctions on BCCI a good decision: Aditya Varma

Secretary of Bihar Cricket Association (BCA), Aditya Varma on Friday lauded the decision of the Supreme Court to impose monetary sanctions on the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and said that the apex court has taken a very good decision.

"Supreme Court has taken an excellent decision against State Cricket Association and BCCI, and their accounts have been frozen... President and secretary of BCCI have to answer the court and also should be physically present in the court. They have to account where and how they have implemented the recommendations," Varma said.

"The decision of the Supreme Court is a very good. The root of everything is illegal earning in BCCI, they used to give money to State Cricket Association and whatever BCCI told them, the latter used to do it," he added.

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to consider imposing monetary sanctions on the BCCI until the cricketing body implements reforms mooted by the Lodha panel. The court reserved its orders on issues such as fixing a limit on money the BCCI could use, and seeking the Lodha panel's approval for all financial contracts and agreements.

Criticizing the stance of the rest of the cricket fraternity, Varma said, "I do not understand that BCCI being a national body which runs cricket, why the rest of the people involved in it haven't taken any action?"

"If the people running cricket commits some blunder, many players suffer, like in my state Bihar and the North-Eastern states. It is very surprising that even after the Supreme Court's direction, full membership has not been given to Bihar, North-eastern states, Uttarakhand and Pondicherry."

Comparing the situation of the BCCI members to patients in ICU, he said, "They are in ICU, but they have got 'oxygen' to clarify their stand and state the reasons why the cricketing body did not implement the reforms mooted by the Lodha panel."

A bench led by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur said that replacing the BCCI office-bearers with a body of independent administrator was an "extreme option" available to the court, which could begin by exercising other options that are "equally effective".

"Should there be an embargo on withdrawal of money beyond a certain amount? Should they go to Justice Lodha panel whenever they want to enter into a financial contract? We will examine all that," said the bench, reserving its order.

It observed that the court could not help the BCCI unless the latter makes its stand clear on all the recommendations by the Lodha panel that the Board has accepted and also those which it would implement within a time frame.