Lodha

verdict

BCCI

Maharashtra

Supreme Court

Retdspoke to Mirror on the latest Supreme Courton thereforms. Excerpts…Iam a little disappointed. Some core recommendations diluted. They were very vital to the structure we submitted to the Supreme Court. Cooling-off was intended to remove the concentration of power. With today’s verdict, monopoly of power is bound to happen. The idea behind one-state-one-vote was that each state should have equal voting power. Nowand Gujarat will have a dominating position in the BCCI. It will affect the balance of power.Yes. The vital organs of the reforms have been affected.It was unfortunate. The July 18, 2016 verdict should have been implemented. Look, they were unhappy but once theverdict came, they were bound to do it. The two-year loss of time has affected the administration.The CoA should have taken strong actions in ensuring the implementation. I thought they would take pro-active steps. But there were some obstructions before them. There may have been reasons for not doing that, but the mandate given to them was not discharged properly.The previous judgement was in a proper way. The Supreme Court is the final authority of the land. You can’t think of anyone defying that order. The members did not implement it and the court had seen through this. So they took this route this time.That’s absolutely wrong analysis. We founded our report on well-known governance principles and sports administration policies. Every recommendation was based on some logic. Transparency and accountability were the idea. The changes made now are affecting the strength of the structure. Ours was a solid package.That’s not right. The reforms will bring a lot of changes.No, not at all. The court had given reasons for the reforms. They (the BCCI) were answerable to the public, they are using the Indian logo, so they are accountable under the law. For them to discharge their functions in right manner, the Supreme Court had to intervene. It was not done out of the way. They appointed a committee which worked for one year. The report was examined by the court before pronouncing the verdict. There was nothing like pro-activism.