BCCI, state elections set to face further hurdles

BCCI's elections are set to take place on October 22 © AFP

With the much-delayed BCCI elections scheduled to take place on October 22, the process is hitting hurdles that threaten to delay it even further. A point of contention that has been raised now is the organisational structure of each state association, and more specifically about the number of persons in the managing committee, with the state associations alleging a biased approach by the court-appointed amicus curiae and the Committee of Administrators.

PS Narsimha, the amicus curiae, had earlier mentioned that having a BCCI-like nine-member apex council for the state units wouldn't be 'logical' nor was it 'the mandate of the Lodha Commission', and after hearing out the requests of the state associations for a larger governing council, had decided to extend it to 19.

The governing council or the managing committee in a state association would comprise of the five office bearers (president, vice president, secretary, joint secretary and treasurer), two player representatives, one CAG representative and other members.

However, after separate discussions with representatives of each of the state associations, the amicus curiae decided to allot a certain number for the formation of the council. However, multiple state associations have raised objection over not having uniformity in that.

The numbers allotted to each association has differed: 13 for Baroda Cricket Association, 9 for Cricket Association of Bengal, 11 for Chhattisgarh State Cricket Sangh, 17 for Mumbai Cricket Association and 19 for Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association, etc.

A member of one of the state associations has said, "There are discriminatory reasons in relation to the strength of the managing Committee where certain associations were notified about the maximum strength to be 19. Whereas certain associations were notified with numbers like 11, 13, 9. This part of mediation is against the concept of having similarity in the constitutions of all state associations."

A member of another association adds, "Wasn't there supposed to be a uniformity in the formation of all the state associations? There is no rationale given behind having a different number for every association. At the end of it, it was all about who bargained the best. These issues are being purposely brought up, so that the elections can be delayed and the CoA continues to remain in power."

A BCCI spokesperson, however, dismissed the claims of bias by stating, "Logically, how can Jammu & Kashmir and Maharashtra have the same number of members in the council? The associations had agreed and signed on the minutes of the meeting with the amicus. Why is there an issue now?"

However, another state representative counters the argument and says, "While mediation, the respective associations were given a wrong impression that other associations had accepted the proposal and we were the only ones against it. Such partial behaviour is not expected from the COA and Amicus who have been appointed by the Supreme Court of India."

A resolution for this issue is likely to be sought before the scheduled elections are conducted later this year.