BCCI president Anurag Thakur says the Societies Act doesn’t allow him to implement constitutional reforms without two-thirds of the members agreeing with the changes. He wants the Supreme Court judges to hear their problems one last time. Excerpts from an interview:
BCCI seems to be playing the ‘who blinks first’ game. By delaying the implementation of reforms, you want the courts to order constitutional changes. In case it happens, it will be seen as undermining an autonomous body. Let me ask a very fundamental question. The BCCI is governed by the Tamil Nadu Societies Act, and as per that, you can make an amendment to the constitution with a three-fourth majority. For that, we can only invite the members to meet and adopt (the Lodha recommendations). We have done that. Now the only issue is, it is up to the members what are the amendments, according to the TN Societies Act, which they can or can’t adopt. I can’t force them, I can just facilitate, which I did. They have adopted various recommendations, even something like having a Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) member in the apex body. No one from the media highlighted that the BCCI had agreed to have a nominee of the CAG despite the fact that we don’t take a single penny from the government. Why should you have CAG? We don’t take any money from government. Societies Act doesn’t allow you to do that.
But the BCCI hasn’t adopted the three main structural changes: cooling-off period, curtailed tenure and one-state-one-vote. How can you compare Mumbai with other organisations? One has given 30 to 40 international players and won the Ranji Trophy 44 times and it gets compared with a state that doesn’t even have 15 quality players. Is this good for Indian cricket? Is it fair on Mumbai, or say Baroda, who have given so much to Indian cricket when BCCI didn’t have money?