‘The process of reforms commenced long back has taken time. Now it is time for implementation’ — PS Narsimha. © BCCI
PS Narsimha, the Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae, has said that the cricket organizers are supposed to run the sport, not the courts or the lawyers or the court-appointed committees. Narsimha feels that after two years of cricket administration by the Committee of Administrators (CoA), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is swiftly moving towards holding its own election.
“Ultimately, it is for the organisers of cricket to take care of the game. It is not for courts to take care of the game. It is not for the lawyers to take care of the game. It is not for the Court appointed committees to continue to take care of the game,” Narsimha told PTI.
“It is for the cricket organisers to do it and these organisers are the elected bodies. Now the reforms require that they associate cricketers also. They take care of the game, that’s all. I think things are moving positively. The process of reforms commenced long back has taken time. Now it is time for implementation,” Narsimha said.
Narsimha recently met representatives of various state associations, who were “enthusiastic in their response”, and has submitted a report to the Supreme Court after nearly 135 hours of mediation with the stakeholders.
The main bone of contention between the CoA and the state associations was the composition of the Apex Council, the smaller unit that will replace the all-powerful Working Committee of the BCCI. Narsimha, though, clarified that the composition of a nine-member Apex Council was never a “mandate” of the Lodha Committee, and further clarified that the combined tenure for any office-bearer in state and parent body is 18 years.
“I thought confining (apex council composition) as a matter of rule to nine for every state association is something that is number one not logical and secondly, it wasn’t the mandate of Lodha Commission. Thirdly, it wasn’t the direction of the court. I spoke to CoA and told them that the system won’t work if you confine it to nine-member Apex council for state associations,” Narsimha said. “After lot of deliberations, CoA also agreed it must be varied from place to place and importantly independence and character of the state association to a large extent was retrieved back.
“The total number of years in BCCI is 9 years and in state association is also 9 years. So the total is 18 years. The last judgement made an observation which seemed to have created confusion as to whether it is 9 or 18.”
Narsimha explained why a nine-member Apex Council wasn’t a template that would work for every state entity. “In BCCI, there are 36 member general bodies whereas some state associations have even 2000 voters – and some even had different composition with clubs and universities. So there are different types of entities and each one needed a representation. State associations are active bodies and they need manpower. Therefore they need larger number of executives to execute.”
Narsimha spoke about the enthusiasm of the state units in holding the elections, and how it’s something not in his purview but in that of the CoA.
“Once they fix the date for BCCI elections, automatically, working backwards, states will be holding their elections and send their representatives (to AGM). My role is not so much about holding elections,” Narsimha concluded.