Was the higher judiciary’s intervention necessary to reform cricket administration in India? Critically comment.
क्या भारत में क्रिकेट प्रशासन में सुधार के लिए उच्च न्यायपालिका का हस्तक्षेप आवश्यक था? समालोचनात्मक टिप्पणी करें।
Candidates can start the answer with highlighting issues around lodha committee and cricketing governance. Also candidates shall give alternative arguments as per demand of question.
Cricketing performance is often associated with national pride, the systemic issues, like corruption, nepotism, spot fixing, etc. have dented it severely in the recent past. As a result, Supreme court intervened in the matter for reforming.
Judicial intervention necessary for reforms:
- There are huge number of politicians flocking BCCI to be a part of cricket administration in spite of neither being a cricket fan nor having enough time for its administrative issues.
- For example, a former agricultural minister was more known as ICC chairman and BCCI president than his ministerial role.
- There is lack of transparency in the functioning of the BCCI and more often than not, the richest cricket organization is engaged in political squabbles with least concern for the welfare of the game, the players and the passionate fans.
- When one state has more than one association, it means that it has more representation in the Board. This leads to underdevelopment of sport uniformly in all parts of the country.
Support from state:
- BCCI receives some indirect subsidies from the government, in the form of tax benefits, security at sporting events free of cost, land for stadiums, etc.
Corruption and scandal-
- Powerful reflection of the larger failings afflicting India today: rampant cronyism, poor governance, and the absence of accountability. For example DDCA case, goa case etc.
BCCI as public servant-
- Transparency and accountability of association is basic right of the people. They may be private in nature, but they are performing a public function. So, they are liable for IPC.
- Board has appropriated unto itself a unique ability to make substantial encroachments into civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
Its external interference and violation of their autonomy:
- Intervention can be seen as Judicial overreach and interference with the legislative and executives’ ability to operate properly.
- Judicial Overreach is what happens when judicial activism oversteps its bounds and becomes judicial adventurism. In BCCI case the court exceeded its jurisdiction.
- The BCCI president, secretary, and other office-bearers are elected on the basis of its bye-laws. So, the Lodha committee has no authority to make the recommendations.
- If they have violated the rules or otherwise shown themselves to be unfit for their positions, they should be removed through the proper prescribed procedure.
- When Judicial activism helps in strengthening the people’s faith in the judiciary, the very act of overreach destroys it. As it appears an act of ‘tyranny of unelected’ in a democracy where elected representatives’ rule.
BCCI, irrespective of its legal status, must act in a transparent and accountable manner as a trustee of the game. Indian courts judicial time can otherwise be utilized for hearing various important matters relating to public importance pending before the court.