The Supreme Court-appointed Lodha Committee has recommended sweeping reforms for the controversy-ridden BCCI, suggesting a bar on ministers from occupying positions, putting a cap on the age and tenure of the office-bearers and legalising betting. In a series of drastic reforms, the three-member panel, headed by Justice (Retd) R M Lodha, also suggested one unit should represent one state, while taking away the voting rights of institutional and city-based units. The committee also suggested the restructuring of the BCCI’s administrative set-up, proposing the position of a CEO accountable to a nine-member apex council.
Important Recommendations
Among the most sensational recommendation by Lodha panel was the suggestion to legalise betting. The panel felt that the move would help curb corruption in the game and recommended that except for players and officials, people should be allowed to place bets on registered sites.
The panel said that to ensure transparency in the BCCI’s functioning, it is important to bring the body under the purview of the Right to Information Act, something that the Board has vehemently opposed in the past citing its autonomy.
Putting a cap on the age and tenure of the BCCI office-bearers, the committee said that the Board members should not hold office for more than three terms. Justice Lodha said hat the President can have only two terms of three years each but other office bearers can have three terms. There will be a compulsory cooling off period after each term for all office-bearers.
As part of its proposed revamp of the BCCI’s administrative set-up, the panel said that the Board’s everyday affairs should be run by a CEO. The panel said there should also be a players’ association to ensure that cricketers have a say in the Board’s functioning.
The committee also recommended a person cannot be a BCCI office-bearer and a state association office-bearer at the same time. The Panel also suggested that the grants given to state associations be properly monitored.
The committee recommended the institution of the office of an Ethics Officer, who would be responsible for resolving issues related to the conflict of interest. Besides, it also suggested the appointment of an Electoral Officer to conduct the Board elections.
