SC go ahead for 'One State One Vote' policy in BCCI

The recommendations by Justice R M Lodha panel do not affect the composition of state cricket associations, the Supreme Court today said while upholding 'one state one vote' policy suggested by the committee reducing the role of five full members to associate members.
A bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur also directed that three cricket clubs each in Maharashtra - Mumbai Cricket Association, Maharashtra Cricket Association, Vidarbha Cricket Association, and in Gujarat - Gujarat Cricket Association, Baroda cricket Association and Saurashtra Cricket Association - would enjoy full membership on rotational basis annually.
It also made it clear that this arrangement of rotational membership shall continue till the time the clubs/associations come together to form a single entity, if such a unification was to ever become a reality.

The apex court accepted the panel's recommendation that reduces Railways Sports Promotion Board, Association of Indian Universities, Services Sports Control Board, National Cricket Club (Kolkata) and Cricket Club of India (Bombay) from full membership of BCCI to the status of Associate Members as they do not have a specific geographical territory.
"Recommendations made by the Committee do not interfere with or alter the composition of State Cricket Associations. Individual citizens who came together to form State Associations have not been asked to discontinue nor do the recommendations impose upon their members an obligation to associate with others with whom they don't wish to associate.

"Composition of the State Cricket Associations remain unaffected, and so does the right of those forming such Associations under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution," the bench also comprising Justice F M I Kalifulla said.

Regarding the 'one state one vote policy' as recommended by the committee, the bench said it has "a two-fold impact on the current state of affairs in BCCI".
"This is a measure which has been recommended with a view to structurally streamline the BCCI to make it more responsive and accountable having regard to the aspiration of different regions for an equal opportunity to participate in the growth and promotion of the game in the country.

The associations had contended that recommendation made by
the Committee based entirely on the fact that they do not represent a territory does not do full justice to them while recommending deletion of their full membership from BCCI.
They had also claimed they should be continued as full members keeping in view the historical background leading to the formation of BCCI.
The Committee had recommended that these clubs need not be continued as full members as two of the clubs -Cricket Club of India (Mumbai) and National Cricket Club (Kolkata)- do not field teams in competitive cricket.
The other three clubs, however, field teams but do not receive any monetary assistance from BCCI, the report said.

The other aspect of the recommendation that full membership of at least four existing full members out of six in Maharashtra and Gujarat be reduced to the status of associate members was examined by the apex court which granted full membership to all of them on a rotational basis annually, keeping in view their contentions that they have contributed to development of the game in their regions.
"In the process of unification, the prospects of budding cricketers of these regions would go down substantially. That being so, the only reasonable and rational answer to the problem within the broad principle of One State One Vote would be to allow the full membership of BCCI to rotate among the three clubs (each in Maharashtra and Gujarat) on an annual basis.

"During the period, one of the associations would exercise rights and privileges of a full member, the other two clubs would act as associate members of BCCI. This rotational arrangement would give each member a right to vote at its turn without violating the broader principle of one State one vote recommended by the Committee," the bench said.
Counsel appearing for clubs from Maharashtra and Gujarat
had sought turning down of this recommendation contending that the six associations, three each from the two States i.E Mumbai Cricket Association, Maharashtra Cricket Association, Vidarbha Cricket Association, Gujarat Cricket Association, Baroda Cricket Association and Saurashtra Cricket Association not only represent a definite territory and participate in competitive cricket by fielding teams but have contributed to the development of the game in their regions.

The bench said, "The argument advanced by the intervenor clubs cannot be lightly brushed aside. It is not disputed that three different regions are represented by three distinct Associations both in the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra. This position has continued to exist from the inception.
"Some of the clubs/associations, if not all are the founding members of BCCI. That being so, a balance has to be struck with historical reality and the need for adopting a pragmatic, uniform and principled approach aimed at reforming and rationalizing BCCI's structural edifice," it said.
The apex court also accepted the contention of the clubs that the process of recognising one out of three associations representing three different regions in those two states is fraught with several difficulties and would result in long drawn litigation and frustration for players in particular and cricket lovers in general.