16 June 2017 last updated at 07:30 GMT
 
SC amicus did not consult Lodha panel
Tuesday 24 January 2017

SC amicus did not consult Lodha panel
Leading counsel Gopal Subramanium, Amicus Curaie to the Supreme Court in the matter pertaining to the BCCI, did not communicate with the Justice RM Lodha Committee in the runup to submitting the names of administrators to run the cricket board.
Subramanium, along with senior lawyer Anil Divan, an eminent constitutional expert, had been asked by the apex court to submit names of potential administrators by January 19, the day the three-judge bench was first scheduled to hear the matter but eventually heard it the next day.
While the Lodha Committee had no say in the shortlisting of administrators, the three members of the committee ­ former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha, Justice RV Raveendran and Justice Ashok Bhan ­ could have certainly played a huge role in suggesting suitable individuals considering they've been working on restructuring of Indian cricket over more than a year now.
Sources in the Lodha Committee confirmed to TOI that there had been no communication at all. The eventual list submitted in a sealed envelope to the Supreme Court contained nine names and the three-judge bench led by senior justice Dipak Misra questioned the logic in not submitting a shorter list. While the names submitted in the list aren't out yet, media reports suggested that former India cricketers Bishen Singh Bedi and Farokh Engineer were included in the list. Engineer will turn 79 this February while Bedi will turn 71in September.
The Lodha Committee reforms say administrators cannot continue in BCCI beyond the age of 70 and though this is clearly an interim arrangement, sources agree that this move in principle goes against the committee's own aesthetics and views.
“It could've been avoided but not that that the committee had any kind of say in it,“ Lodha panel sources added.
The three-judge bench is expected to appoint the administrators on Tuesday.
The Committee had pro posed the name of former top bureaucrat GK Pillai but the latter ­ who is based out of Shillong ­ refused to come on board citing personal reasons. Former judge of the Delhi High Court, Mukul Mudgal's name also did the rounds but he turned down the request citing his association with the game of football.
Given the legal as well as financial challenges ahead for Indian cricket ­ in view of a slew of petitions being filed by state associations and with a slew of contracts coming up for renewal ­ it is not known yet if Subramanium and Divan have submitted names of individuals well-versed with legalities and corporate affairs.
The names in the envelope, yet to be made public, could throw some light.

Leading counsel Gopal Subramanium, Amicus Curaie to the Supreme Court in the matter pertaining to the BCCI, did not communicate with the Justice RM Lodha Committee in the runup to submitting the names of administrators to run the cricket board.

Subramanium, along with senior lawyer Anil Divan, an eminent constitutional expert, had been asked by the apex court to submit names of potential administrators by January 19, the day the three-judge bench was first scheduled to hear the matter but eventually heard it the next day.

While the Lodha Committee had no say in the shortlisting of administrators, the three members of the committee ­ former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha, Justice RV Raveendran and Justice Ashok Bhan ­ could have certainly played a huge role in suggesting suitable individuals considering they've been working on restructuring of Indian cricket over more than a year now.

Sources in the Lodha Committee confirmed to TOI that there had been no communication at all. The eventual list submitted in a sealed envelope to the Supreme Court contained nine names and the three-judge bench led by senior justice Dipak Misra questioned the logic in not submitting a shorter list. While the names submitted in the list aren't out yet, media reports suggested that former India cricketers Bishen Singh Bedi and Farokh Engineer were included in the list. Engineer will turn 79 this February while Bedi will turn 71in September.

The Lodha Committee reforms say administrators cannot continue in BCCI beyond the age of 70 and though this is clearly an interim arrangement, sources agree that this move in principle goes against the committee's own aesthetics and views.

“It could've been avoided but not that that the committee had any kind of say in it,“ Lodha panel sources added.

The three-judge bench is expected to appoint the administrators on Tuesday.

The Committee had pro posed the name of former top bureaucrat GK Pillai but the latter ­ who is based out of Shillong ­ refused to come on board citing personal reasons. Former judge of the Delhi High Court, Mukul Mudgal's name also did the rounds but he turned down the request citing his association with the game of football.

Given the legal as well as financial challenges ahead for Indian cricket ­ in view of a slew of petitions being filed by state associations and with a slew of contracts coming up for renewal ­ it is not known yet if Subramanium and Divan have submitted names of individuals well-versed with legalities and corporate affairs.

The names in the envelope, yet to be made public, could throw some light.

Courtesy: The Times of India

BCCI to appoint ethics officer
Rahul Dravid had written a letter to CoA seeking clarity on the conflict of interest issue
Kumble to continue as coach on WI tour: Rai
The CAC panel will decide on the road ahead