When Santosh Rangnekar, Chief Financial Officer of the Board of Control for Cricket in India filed a written complaint against Anirudh Chaudhry, honorary treasurer, claiming that the latter had threatened to “liquidate” him, it brought out in the open the hostile relations currently prevailing between the Board's professional management team and the old guard.
For Rangnekar, who has previously worked with top corporate houses in India, including a stint at TATA Sons, life in the Cricket Centre, the BCCI headquarters is rough and tough in contrast.
It is no secret that the old guard had been unhappy with the Committee of Administrators ever since it was formed by the Supreme Court and continues to obstruct not just the reforms process but also the day-to-day administration of Indian cricket by the professionals.
The three remaining office bearers of the BCCI are at loggerheads with each other. So much so that one office bearer openly takes swipes at his colleague even in the presence of the media.
In what seems to be a deliberate delaying tactic combined with ego issues between the trio, the office bearers were unable to decide on a date for the BCCI Special General Body Meet, despite the CoA directing them to hold it before December 7. The office bearers failed to come to an agreement over one date citing personal reasons, “marriage” in the extended family and in that of a personal staff.
One of the important items on the agenda of the emergent Special General Body Meeting is to apprise the Board members of the proposed new Future Tours Programme (FTP) being worked upon by CEO Rahul Johri and his team. Johri would be attending the ICC Workshop on the same issue on December 7.
The BCCI decided to hold the SGM on December 11 after the workshop; one office bearer has already taken a copy of a draft that Johri was supposed to present at the meeting and circulated it between “important, key members”. The proposed FTP is to come into effect from 2019 onwards.
As the frustration over the apex court's procrastination over the implementation of its own order grows, it leads to the question―when will a democratically elected body as per the SC order come in place?
Vinod Rai, the chairman of the CoA had declared himself a nightwatchman, expecting to complete his brief of implementing the reforms and ensuring a democratically elected body as per the Lodha reforms was put in place had given himself till September to execute the court's order. However, almost a year on, the reforms process is stuck, the court is playing a waiting game and there is no sight of a democratically elected body on the horizon as of now.
States have filed multiple petitions claiming immunity under Article (19C) from reforms. The court meanwhile has decided to impose the constitution on the BCCI, after directing a frustrated CoA to draft one on the basis of the Lodha Committee recommendations. The CoA had directed office bearers to call SGMs to pass major recommendations but despite such SGMs, the BCCI stuck to its stubborn stand and raised objections on almost all important points. This forced the CoA to submit a scathing fifth status report with court in August asking for removal of all its office bearers.
While the reforms process stuck, the architect of the reforms, Justice Lodha, is fuming over the delay. He has criticised the CoA in the past over its soft approach wondering why there is a delay in implementation of an order of the Supreme Court, despite both the Special Leave Petition and Curative Petition challenging the order having been dismissed by SC.
There is strong resistance from states as well. As many as four state associations have refused to give their list of members to CoA and haven't submitted their annual accounts either.
The CoA, as per the SC order, has submitted a draft constitution based on the Lodha recommendations and included the objections of office bearers to particular clauses for the court's perusal. The office bearers had failed to get the general body to pass the recommendations and be present in person before the Special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud hearing the case. They were ordered to submit their suggestions for new constitution to the CoA.
The court will consider the proposed new constitution in the second week of January 2018, after it opens post the winter break. The court's indulgence and patience is being treated by BCCI members as a breeding ground for more obstruction and attempts to undermine the CoA and cricket administrators' efforts.
As for the elections to the BCCI―they appear unlikely to happen anytime soon, even next year. For that to take place, the state bodies too need to change their constitution and align theirs to the new BCCI constitution. That is another battle on the hands of both the CoA and the court.
