SC again slams BCCI for ‘corrupting’ its members

The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Board of Control for cricket in India, the world's richest cricket administrator, saying it was being run like a ''mutual benefit society'' and ''practically corrupting'' its members by not asking how the crores of rupees allotted to them was being spent.

While scrutinising the fund allocation and expenses of the BCCI, the apex court also pulled it up for not giving funds to neglected states for the promotion of cricket and said it has done nothing to help promote the game.

It was also critical of the discrimination meted out to different states by BCCI and said the states begged for money from the board, which follows a ''no questions asked'' policy as a method to buy votes in a certain manner.

Lauding the work done by Justice R M Lodha committee in outlining massive structural change in the functioning of the BCCI, the bench said, ''This is not an ordinary panel. It is a committee in which we have complete faith. It is a committee of judges and its findings have to be relied upon. We cannot say that the findings are perverse.

''They have come after consultations with experts and a wide spectrum of people and the recommendations have been given by a former CJI who has experience and they have arrived at some conclusions,'' a bench comprising Justices T S Thakur and F M I Khalifulla said.

The BCCI had moved the apex court submitting that it has accepted some of the recommendations of the Lodha panel, while there were difficulties in implementing others as these would have wide-ranging effects on the functioning of the board.

While analysing the table of fund allocation and expenditure provided by BCCI for the last five years, the bench said, ''Out of 29 states, 11 were going without a single penny and zero funds. You have given them nothing. This doesn't reflect a good future.

''The impression we get from the Lodha Committee is that you are releasing huge amounts to some states and you leave it to the states on the ways to spend them. You are practically corrupting the person by not demanding explanation in spending of huge money,'' the bench said, adding that ''You (BCCI) are running a mutually beneficial society''.

During the hearing, the court wanted to know whether any cases of misappropriation had been found and first information reports been lodged by the BCCI. Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the BCCI, said an FIR was filed pertaining to the funds allocation to the Jammu and Kashmir cricket board and that Assam has not filed a statement of account.

The bench also said, ''Rs570 crore is distributed every year and next time it will be Rs1,000 crore. There must be a system to check embezzlement, siphoning. You cannot allow the siphoning and misappropriation of funds.''

At present, there is complete lack of transparency in fund allocation to the states, it said.

''You function like show me the face, I will make the payment,'' the bench said, adding that there should be some justice in providing funds.

The bench, after perusing the affidavit filed by BCCI detailing the records of payments made to states including Gujarat, Goa and Tripura, said the amount was several-fold higher than 11 other states like Bihar and Chhattisgarh, which go around with a ''begging bowl''.

''These eleven go begging for assistance. These 11 states are not paid a single penny. Why would Gujarat get over Rs60 crore in its capacity as a full member with voting rights, while Bihar did not,'' the bench said, adding ''why Goa with hardly a population of over 10 lakh was getting Rs57 crore from BCCI, while Bihar is not.''

Venugopal said that Bihar was an associate member and had refused to submit  its audited account statement. Funds are released by the board to members depending on their cricketing activity.

The bench then asked why the Railway Sports Promotion Board, a full member, does not get anything. To this, the BCCI said the board does not have an international stadium.

''Then why Tripura with around 25 lakh population gets Rs60 crore even before an international stadium has been constructed?'' the bench then asked BCCI.

Senior advocate Ashok Desai, appearing for Punjab Cricket Association, objected to the Lodha panel recommendation on age limit and said that implementation of the report would fundamentally change their rules.

''Justice Lodha Committee does not change any rules. It does not say that there should be seven balls in an over. It only recommends change in the persons managing cricket administration,'' the bench said.

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on 8 April.

Resisting reforms
Earlier, after BCCI and several cricket associations resisted implementation of Lodha panel recommendations, the court on 4 February had given a stern message to BCCI asking it to ''fall in line'' with the recommendations of committee.

It had again on 3 March pulled up the BCCI for its reluctance to comply with the recommendations of the Lodha panel, including keeping ministers away from cricket administration, observing that politicians wanted to hold such posts for ''power and clout''.