Criticising Sourav Ganguly & company’s decision to introduce the amendments, RM Lodha said the former could become president for his reforms.
RM Lodha (L) and Sourav Ganguly. (Photo: IANS)
Retired Justice RM Lodha, under whose leadership the constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was reformed, criticised the recently-elected board president Sourav Ganguly.
In the first Annual General Meeting of the BCCI after the Lodha Reforms were implemented in the constitution, the newly elected body under Ganguly took decisions to bring various amendments to the constitution.
Among many amendments, the most important was the AGM’s approval to dilute the cooling-off period rule for the office-bearing administrators.
Advertisement
Criticising Ganguly & company’s decision to introduce the amendments, the former Chief Justice of India said, “It’s very unfortunate. I thought a cricketer at the helm of affairs will understand that it was only our reforms which brought him to this position.”
“If the earlier system was in vogue, perhaps no cricketer could have ever dreamt of heading a body like the BCCI. The way the politics is played in cricket administration, I don’t think any cricketer would have been able to get this position but for these reforms,” Lodha was quoted as saying to Hindustan Times.
The cooling-off rule of the Lodha reforms makes it mandatory for a person to get himself/herself off from every type of cricket administration for three years after serving two three-year terms in BCCI or in the state boards.
If the amendment is approved by the Supreme Court it could see Ganguly remain at the position till at least 2022. BCCI Secretay and son of Amit Shah, Jay Shah could also see his life at the office being elongated.
While Shah’s term is supposed to run for one-and-a-half years, Ganguly’s tenure is dated till July 2020 according to the existing rule.
Another significant change that the Ganguly-led AGM has proposed is to do away with taking the Supreme Court’s approval for amending the BCCI constitution.
The existing terms for bringing forward any change in the constitution needs the three-fourth majority of the general body and the court’s approval. The new amendments seek to end the Supreme Court’s involvement.
Advertisement
