70-year age cap, individuals meddling in federal body affairs & more: Supreme Court hears BCCI plea for amendment of Constitution

The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally indicated that it would allow two consecutive terms for office bearers of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the State cricket associations before the three-year cooling-off period mandated by Justice Lodha committee kicks in [The Board of Control for Cricket in India v Cricket Association of Bihar]..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli posed queries regarding the need to do away with the 70-year age limit for office bearers and International Cricket Council (ICC) representatives. On the cooling-off rule, the Bench remarked, "Earlier problem was even if you did one three-year term you had to cool off. That was too stringent, because you need time to make networks etc"..The court was hearing a plea by the BCCI to amend its Constitution to do away with the mandatory cooling-off period between tenures of office bearers across State cricket associations and the BCCI..Background.The Constitution drawn up based on the Justice RM Lodha Committee recommendations mandates that any individual, who has been an office bearer in any State cricket association or the BCCI or a combination of both for six years, should undergo a three-year cooling-off period before such person can contest to become an office bearer again.This would mean that both BCCI President Sourav Ganguly and Secretary Jay Shah would have to demit office since both have completed six years, having earlier served as office bearers with Cricket Association of Bengal and Gujarat Cricket Association respectively.The amendments if allowed by the top court would, thus, enable Ganguly and Shah to continue in office.The Supreme Court had in July appointed Senior Counsel and former Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh Amicus Curiae in the case..Arguments today.Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BCCI, submitted that the game of cricket in India has largely been streamlined, but amendments would be needed when rules come in the way of functional operations.Arguing against the concept of a cooling-off period before someone transitions from state-level to BCCI leadership, the SG contended, "BCCI is a federal organisation, under it [there are] State and district associations. Leadership develops at grassroots, then depending on quality and inbuilt work they gain experience of administration and domain expertise. Thereafter they migrate to BCCI elections. What we are proposing is a total limit of 9 years for any post."The SG went on to give an example of someone whose tenure would be cut short by such rules. "Kindly visualise someone who is energetic and starts building ... a stadium or any other project, because his tenure is truncated he won't be able to finish it. Contention of same people occupying the top post taken care of by the 70-year age cap and the 9-year tenure limit [proposed] at associations."The other amendments the SG touched upon related to removing the qualification of administrators not holding public office, having criminal charges. Further, it was also requested that appointed officials like the Chief Operating Officer (COO) report to the elected office-bearers.The bench raised queries on many of the proposals. Justice Chandrachud on the proposed amendment of allowing administrators of other sports to contest BCCI polls said,"The idea is if you're in one sport don't be in another. At one time focus on one sport".The SG defended the rule to not disqualify candidates with criminal charges, and argued that these provisions are more misused than used."In public life this the reality, if I don't want someone to participate I put SC/ST charges," he said. The bench said that the suggestion to do away with the age cap, particularly for ICC representatives, is dicey and opined the board should go with younger blood. .Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, supported the amendments, pointing out that that many cricketers were employed by government undertakings. They would then arguably be holding 'public office' as per the Constitution, hence disqualifying them. He added that the amendments were being proposed to a Constitution primarily drafted on the basis of suggestion from people over 70 years of age..The respondent, Bihar Cricket Association (BCA), however, opposed the amendments, terming it an exercise of wanting 'absolute power'. "National Sports Code has bearing on all sports. Youth should be promoted in managerial positions." The counsel for BCA argued that the purpose of cooling-off period would be defeated by the proposed amendments. The SG objected to this saying, "My lords this is what happens when individuals meddle in a federal body. He is representing one association.".[Read our live-coverage of today's hearing]