The BCCI is unlikely to comply with the Supreme Court demand that it submit, on Friday, an undertaking saying it will "unconditionally" implement all the court-approved recommendations of the Lodha Committee. In the absence of such an agreement from the BCCI, the Supreme Court had indicated it would pass an order on Friday to replace the board's office bearers with a panel of administrators.

A top BCCI office bearer told ESPNcricinfo there was no way the board could submit such an undertaking at short notice and without the approval of its member associations. "Who am I to submit the undertaking?" he said. "The question arises only if the states agree to these recommendations. How can BCCI office bearers decide what members will implement?

"I can only bring members to the meeting room; I can't force them to adopt recommendations. They said they couldn't adopt the recommendations in entirety. What can the office bearers do in this situation? I don't even have a vote."

When asked about the BCCI's next course of action, he said: "We will wait for tomorrow's order. What else can we do? How can this be done in such short notice? Till the time I have nothing in writing, how can I ask the states?Let the order come, we will make an official statement."

Several state association officials ESPNcricinfo had spoken to recently confirmed they were waiting for the BCCI's decision on the recommendations before making amendments to their constitutions, as mandated by the first set of timelines laid down by the Lodha Committee. However, after the special general meeting on September 30, many of these state associations closed ranks ostensibly on the advice of BCCI. Only Vidarbha and Tripura decided to implement the recommendations approved by the court.

The official said the Supreme Court should have passed an order if the recommendations were to be non-negotiable. "What do they mean by a timeline [for implementation of reforms]? Why didn't Supreme Court pass an order under Article 142 [of the constitution] if they wanted to make it compulsory? Why are they saying that members should opt for the recommendations? These recommendations are forced upon us. They don't understand the genuine compulsions that prevent us from implementing the reforms."

Desh Gaurav Sekhri, a sports law expert, said Article 142 gave the Supreme Court authority to pass a decree or make an order as necessary towards doing complete justice in a matter. "What is relevant to the current situation is that it gives the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of court, and it has been used for that purpose in the past," he told ESPNcricinfo. "The nature of this stand-off being unprecedented, the exact law and/or regulations that the Supreme Court invokes were it to pass an order on October 7 are not clear as of now. Invoking Article 142 would be an extremely serious step by the court, and would take this matter into a space from which conciliation or compromise may no longer be an option for either party."

Another BCCI office bearer admitted the board could have been less confrontational in its approach, referring to the tardiness in responding to the Lodha Committee's correspondences. "This could have, and should have, definitely been handled better."

The latest developments in the tussle between the BCCI and the Lodha Committee took place in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The court was hearing the BCCI's response to the status report filed by the Lodha Committee last week, which recommended that the BCCI office bearers be superseded because they were impeding the implementation of the recommendations passed by a Supreme Court order on July 18.