CoA asks BCCI to review lifetime award for Pankaj Roy

In his mail addressed to secretary Choudhary, CoA member Diana Edulji, Johri and Karim; Shetty had written: “I would like to draw your attention to an important point with respect to the awards since it’s inception. It was decided in the first meeting that BCCI shall not bestow the CK Nayudu award posthumously. If you see the list of awardees till last year, it does not include the names of greats like Vijay Merchant, Vinoo Mankad etc.

He goes on to add: “It was later decided that the contributions of cricketers who were no more be remembered by presenting a special award at the BCCI awards function. I just thought that I must point out this deviation in CK Nayudu award this year to late Pankaj Roy, an outstanding cricketer of yester years.”

BCCI unbudged on 70-year age-tenure cap
The BCCI and the state associations have expectedly dug in their heels with regard to the draft constitution prepared by the CoA. In their fresh set of suggestions to the draft constitution, as directed by the Supreme Court, the major points in the Lodha reforms – from nine-year tenure cap for the office-bearers to cooling-off period and the 70-year age limit – have been opposed.

The Saurashtra Cricket Association (SCA) decried the nine-year tenure cap (nine each in the BCCI and the respective state association) for office-bearers and the age limit, saying: “It restricts candidates over the age of 70, office bearers who have completed 9 years in office and disqualifies certain sections, which’s wholly unfair and discriminatory. It violates core democratic principles and meritocracy. There is no basis in excluding experienced candidates who have contacts and practical knowledge of the working of BCCI.”

The Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) dittoed, stressing that the disqualification, which includes ministers and government servants also, appears to be “unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and having no nexus with the objective sought to be achieved”. The HPCA has also said that a nine-year cap is “too short” and the “discretion of the electorate” should determine the duration. The CoA has interpreted this as an effort to “perpetuate” lengthy tenures “under the guise of protecting ‘democratic principles and meritocracy”.

The Indian Express had already reported that the three-year cooling-off after every three-year term in office – nine years maximum – is the major bone of contention for the cricket board and its members. Almost every state body has red-flagged it. Consensus emerged with regard to the constitution of the Apex Council and distribution of functions, powers and responsibilities between the elected office-bearers and the professional appointees – with the latter being dominant – with both being considered as ‘impracticable’.

Also, according to the BCCI acting president CK Khanna and treasurer Anirudh Chaudhry, “eradication of the authority of the office bearers should be removed”, while acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary has mentioned “prior check/approval from office bearers” to “ensure accountability”. Earlier, the SCA has described the CEO’s post in the BCCI unnecessary.It mentioned that holding office simultaneously in the BCCI and state association is not conflict of interest.

The CoA, on the other hand, has contended that the state associations need to adhere to “certain basic conditions” and as the existing conditions were found “inadequate”, the Lodha Committee has recommended additional conditions “to ensure good governance”. As per the court order, the state bodies are not getting any BCCI grant at the moment unless they comply with the Lodha reforms.

Meanwhile, the CoA has suggested the formation of a professional committee comprising reputed former cricketers that will appoint selection committees “for a term of 2 years”. A cricket board member, however, gave a lukewarm response to the idea.