Cooling clause Snow mountain, BCCI was waiting for the weather to change: Justice RM Lodha


On Wednesday, the Supreme Court allowed the BCCI to amend its constitution which would allow cricket board officers to serve two successive six-year terms. Overall, a board member can now serve for 12 continuous years – six years in the state association followed by six in the BCCI – after which the cooling-off period is triggered.

This has therefore enabled the current BCCI Chairman, Sourav Ganguly, and the General Secretary of the Board, Jay Shah, to continue in their respective roles until 2025.

Read also : Apex Court allows BCCI to change mandatory cooling-off period

After the IPL spot-fixing scandal in 2013, the SC-appointed panel headed by Justice RM Lodha recommended a series of reforms within the BCCI. It included a three-year cooling-off period for a council official after serving a fixed term of three years.

However, the BCCI continued to oppose the clause which was later amended in 2018 to make it a total of six years including a term in the state association.

Reacting to the latest judgment, Lodha said the court must have felt the clause needed changes, but stood by its recommendations which were implemented in 2016.

“Our governance principles were accepted by the Supreme Court in its July 18, 2016 order,” Lodha said. Hindustan time. “Maybe after a while the court felt it needed to be changed. We gave the report with much thought, study and homework. The idea of ​​calming down was also considered meritorious. Then the court must have thought that the previous orders, if upheld, would show an injustice to the administration of cricket.

Read also : Former ICC elite panel referee Asad Rauf dies aged 66

Lodha said BCCI bureau members viewed the cooling clause as a “mountain of snow”. “The cooling clause is a mountain of snow. The officers struggle to navigate and wait for the weather to change. Its good. We have to bow to the Supreme Court,” he said.

He added: “Perhaps it is the evolution of the new jurisprudence. Some orders remain final and with others…maybe the court thought continuity of board members was important. There must be good reasons that convinced the court to change its previous orders.

get latest Cricket News, Program and cricket live scores here


Comments are closed.