The average cricket lover always saw it coming. But N Srinivasan and his bunch of merrymakers thought otherwise. After all, several Union ministers, chief ministers and ministers, Members of Parliament from various political parties are literally prostrating before the BCCI's top bosses for important positions.
Over the years, various questions asked by me in Parliament have been stonewalled. The cosy club in BCCI never cared about the government. It is only natural that the cricket lover looked towards the Supreme Court for deliverance.
The apex court has observed that Chennai Super Kings should be "terminated without further inquiry" because one of its officials, Gurunath Meiyappan, has been indicted for betting by the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee. Srinivasan is himself facing allegations of conflict of interest. The court wanted to know the exact shareholding pattern of India Cements, the owners of CSK.
According to the IPL rulebook, if a team official is found indulging in corrupt activities like betting and match-fixing, the franchise can be terminated. The Mudgal panel has said in its report that Meiyappan was a team owner and indulged in betting and sharing team information.
The apex court even went to the extent of terming Meiyappan's leaking team information to "insider trading".
Now let me highlight the government's reply to to my starred question on November 25...
The BCCI is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act. Recognition has not been granted by the government. However, given that the ICC recognises the BCCI as the apex national federation responsible for promotion of cricket in India, a team selected by BCCI is considered as the Indian team. The ministry only grants the BCCI permission to participate in international events and for holding international matches in India at no cost to the government. This is subject to clearances from the ministry of external affairs from a political angle and the ministry of home affairs from the security one.
During the past, controversies surrounding the BCCI, including betting and match-fixing in the IPL, have come to the notice of the government. Various agencies of the government, like Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax Department and Directorate General of Service Tax, have conducted probes.
That the BCCI is a public body — refer to Section 2(h) of the RTI Act — was raised before the Central Information Commission (CIC) which, in turn, sought the views of the government. This government has already made written submissions to CIC on December 16, 2011, and January 9, 2012, pleading to bring the BCCI under the RTI Act. The CIC issued a notice for hearing the matter on July 25, 2013. The BCCI then filed a writ petition (WP No.20229/2013) in the Madras high court. The court ordered an interim stay of all other proceedings.
However, there are a few questions that come to mind. Let us all ask our administrators the following:
1) Selecting players to represent India is a state function. Why should it be left to a body that's not recognised by the Indian government and vice versa?
2) Surely, if the ICC recognises the BCCI as the apex national federation responsible for promotion of cricket in India, the Indian government, in the prevalent exceptional circumstances, can apply for recognition by floating an NSF for cricket. In one shot, the government can get rid of this monstrous, arrogant and irresponsible body.
3) The very fact that the BCCI requires political approval from the external affairs ministry and security clearance from the home ministry means that the government can exercise control over the BCCI. So why does it seem so helpless? Is it not true that powerful politicians do not allow any control over this uncontrolled body?
4) Is the BCCI absolutely free to do what it likes, without any care in the world for norms and issues of good governance? Is it not accountable to the Indian people or to the government? It is shameful to learn that several government agencies have carried out long-drawn probes against the BCCI. But the fact is that no action has been taken.
5) It is surprising that despite the government having expressly stated in writing to CIC on December 16, 2011, and subsequently on January 9, 2012, that the BCCI may be brought under RTI Act, even the CIC seems to be as helpless as the Indian government to do so. It seems that the ploy to get a stay from Madras high court has succeeded in putting a lid on such an attempt to bring sanity in the functioning of the BCCI. The logical question is: what steps have been taken by the CIC or the Indian government to get this stay vacated?
I bet the average cricket lover would love to get some answers.
