Almost a month after the Sourav Ganguly-led Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) rejected 10 of the 21 recommendations made by the Supreme Court-appointed Lodha committee, the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) also refused to implement suggestions which could have direct ramifications on the functioning of Board of Control for Cricket (BCCI) in India’s state units.
The managing committee of DDCA met here to review and deliberate on various observations of the Lodha Committee, and was not quite convinced about most of the major recommendations calling for sweeping reforms in the BCCI’s governing structure.
The DDCA is not on the same page with Lodha panel on major issues like elections and terms of office bearers, DDCA office bearers simultaneously holding a post in BCCI, proxy voting and conflict of interest among others.
On the issue of one person holding one post, the DDCA, in a statement signed by vice-presidents Chetan Chauhan and CK Khanna, said: “We the managing committee of DDCA feel that it is the freedom of concerned state associations, to decide (whether) the appointment of office bearers would affect/restrict administrative function of DDCA or not.
“So long members of the executive committee (directors) do not feel that the functioning of DDCA is being jeopardized, there cannot be any justified reason in imposing this clause.” The controversial cricket body is in favour of continuation of proxy voting.
“System should be continued as in many associations, there is a provision of voting in person. Associations which are incorporated under the Companies Act are statutorily bound by section 176-178 of the Act 1956. Even after appointing a person as his proxy, any member DDCA can come and cast his vote in person in the General Body meetings/election. The proxy may be authenticated by Retired Judge of any court as is the practice in DDCA.”
The DDCA sounded optimistic about state associations coming under RTI Act in future, but it rejected the recommendations on elections and terms of office bearers.
“The election of the office bearers is through a democratic process as per the constitution of the DDCA. Any limitation on its term is not justified.
“The committee is of the opinion that the powers to appoint Electoral Officer should rest with the Executive Committee of DDCA as long as the committee does not observe any conflict of interest as regard to the appointed person.”
It also rejected the panel’s recommendations to do away with commercials in between overs. “(It) is unreasonable restriction without taking into the facts about the factors of generation of revenue for development and promotion of cricket by the BCCI. Implementation will drastically reduce the revenue.”
According to DCCA, disbursement of funds by BCCI should be need-based. “We are of the view that only the infrastructure grants could be rationally disbursed, since share of revenue is an earning by the member association this proposal should not be covered under this.”
As far as the panel’s proposal to have in place a three-member selection committee instead of five the DDCA observed, “It is irrational as it is impossible for three to run all over the country to pick the players.”
And about uniformity in constitution and functioning, the DDCA noted, “DDCA is guided and governed by the rules and regulations framed under the Memorandum and Articles of DDCA and all major decisions of the association including conduct of the elections are taken in line within the constitution.
“DDCA has its independent constitution and is a section 8 company (formerly 25) and was registered under the Companies Act since 1936. “In the given circumstances, it will not be possible/practical to make any amendments just for the sake of uniformity.”
Feature image source: AFP