Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

SC removes Anurag Thakur as BCCI president, Ajay Shirke as secretary

Discussion in 'National Politics' started by Kalmuahlaunda, Jan 2, 2017.

  1. Kalmuahlaunda

    Kalmuahlaunda Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Country Flag:
    India
    BCCI President Anurag Thakur has been removed by the Supreme Court, which said that he should cease to exist from the board.
    By: FE Online | Updated: January 2, 2017 1:13 PM
    [​IMG]SC said that Anurag Thakur should cease to exist from BCCI. (Reuters)

    The Supreme Court on Monday ordered BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke to forthwith vacate office. A bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Thakur, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said that as an interim arrangement, the senior-most Vice President of the BCCI will act as the President and the Joint Secretary will act as the Secretary. The court asked amicus curiae Gopal Subramanium and eminent lawyer Fali Nariman to suggest the names that will be in the committee to be headed by an administrator to oversee the functioning of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. The court said it will pass a separate order on January 19 for appointing the administrator. The bench also said that all the office bearers of the BCCI and its affiliate state units, who are in conflict with the recommendation of the Lodha committee, will demit office. Track latest updates here:

    12:45PM: Don’t have to say much as I haven’t read judgement, but I don’t have a problem: Ajay Shirke to ANI on his removal from post of BCCI Secretary by SC

    Watch December 2015 Interview of BCCI President Anurag Thakur on conflict of interest issues



    Watch: BCCI Chief Anurag Thakur Sacked By Supreme Court





    This is what Ajay Shirke had to say after the verdict

    Ajay Shirke—I’m not a person who has ever hankered for any position pic.twitter.com/ZoGJzsyIF0

    — NewsX (@NewsX) January 2, 2017



    12:30PM: Whatever Supreme court says is final, will have to abide by that: Saurashtra Cricket Association Secretary Niranjan Shah on Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke’s removal

    12:28PM: Aditya Verma, petitioner in the case: If you have done wrong then you will have to face the law, all politicians are not bad

    12:26PM: Aditya Verma, petitioner in the case: It is a victory of cricket

    12:24PM: Last option is to file a curative petition: Justice Mudgal

    12:22PM: The SC judgement cannot be disobeyed: Justice Mudgal

    12:20PM: No one above 70, unsound mind, ministers, government servants, convicted, holding post for cumulative term of 9 years can be BCCI office bearer: SC

    This is a revolution the kind of which I haven’t seen in all the years I have followed Indian cricket. Await the calm beyond the storm.

    — Harsha Bhogle (@bhogleharsha) January 2, 2017



    12:07PM: SC says all office bearers of BCCI, state associations who refuse to abide by recommendations of Lodha Panel shall demit office forthwith.

    12:04PM: State associations will have to fall in line, says Bedi

    12:02PM: SC says a committee of administrator will look after the affairs of BCCI.

    12:00PM: Senior-most Vice President of BCCI will act as President and Joint Secy will act as Secy: SC

    11:59AM: All office bearers of BCCI and state associations to give an undertaking to abide by recommendations of Lodha Committee.

    11:57AM: All office bearers of BCCI & state associations who refuse to abide by recommendations of Lodha panel shall demit office forthwith: SC.


    11:55AM: No one above 70 yrs, unsound mind, ministers, govt servants, convicted persons and those holding post for cumulative term of 9 yrs can be office bearer: SC

    11:54AM: Next date of hearing in BCCI matter on January 19th

    11:52AM: Anurag Thakur & Ajay Shirkey have borne consequences of BCCI not obeying SC orders: Justice Mukul Mudgal

    This is what Justice Lodha had to say

    #WATCH: Victory for cricket, administrators come & go but ultimately its for the game’s benefit says Justice Lodha on Thakur/Shirke removal pic.twitter.com/mmic3v09zx

    — ANI (@ANI_news) January 2, 2017



    11:50AM: This will be very good for Indian sports and cricket in particular: Bishan Singh Bedi on Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke’s removal from BCCI

    11:48AM: Order of Supreme court should work as a template for other sports organisations says Justice Lodha on removal of Anurag Thakur and Shirke

    11:46AM: It is the victory for the game of cricket and it will flourish, administrators come and go but its for the benefit of the game: Justice Lodha


    11:45AM: SC appoints Fali Nariman & senior SC lawyer Gopal Subramanium as Amicus Curiae to find out who would be the BCCI officials

    11:44AM: One should understand once SC order has come,it has to be obeyed by all,majesty of law has worked: Justice Lodha on Thakur/Shirke removal

    11:44AM: Bedi: this is a great news for Indian sports and cricketing community

    11:43AM: Once committee’s reforms were accepted by SC in its 18 July order, it had to be implemented, this is logical consequence: Justice Lodha

    11:42AM: SC says that the BCCI and state board officials failed to implement its orders to bring transparency and accountability in cricket body

    11:42AM: This was to happen, and now this has happened. Had submitted 3 reports before Supreme court, even then it wasnt implemented: Justice Lodha

    11:41AM: Supreme Court asked “why prosecution should not be initiated against him”?, also sought a reply from him (Anurag Thakur) in this regard

    11:40AM: SC says as per July 18, 2016 order, these (Anurag Thakur & Ajay Shirke) 2 officials did not comply with its order and thereby been removed
     
  2. Kalmuahlaunda

    Kalmuahlaunda Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Country Flag:
    India
  3. Levina

    Levina Admin- Social media Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    4,436
    Country Flag:
    United Arab Emirates
    Why should BCCI wield so much power?
     
  4. Kalmuahlaunda

    Kalmuahlaunda Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Country Flag:
    India
    That's a different topic how much power should BCCI hav, but what right does SC have to remove a head from a private body. Tommorow SC will remove Ratan Tata from Tata? What is this banana republic?

    Also BCCI have checks, they cannot do anything on their own. BCCI has been given power by ICC not GOI, or SC. What SC did is judicial overreach. Court cannot fire head of private entities as per their wish. And, what wrong Thakur as BCCI head did, that SC had the audacity to fire him?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2017
  5. Levina

    Levina Admin- Social media Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    4,436
    Country Flag:
    United Arab Emirates
    Which it is allowed to.
    SC is the ultimate authority in matters of law. SC can direct the bcci to legislate the recommendation of the lodha committee. There is a scope of SC overreaching its power.
    This so because in one of the leading case of supreme court it was held that “BCCI though it is not a state but performs functions of stated indirectly, as a result of this BCCI also comes under the writ jurisdiction of court”
     
  6. Kalmuahlaunda

    Kalmuahlaunda Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Country Flag:
    India
    That's a vague statement, that's like saying Tata is not a state but involves in Indian factories, workers and defence thus performs functions of stated indirectly. Firstly Lodha panel is a recommendation that is set up by SC itself to screw BCCI and it is upto BCCI whether they will accept it or not, you cannot force a private entity into accepting something. 2ndly just because they are superme court judge doesn't give them the right to overreach their judiciary. There's an legislative / executive pillar and there's judiciary, each has a defined task. They shouldn't venture into each other's boundaries. Lately SC has been acting like a bunch of retards, first the forceful national anthem and now this. Even PM can force and declare emergency, that doesn't mean he have to. BCCI is the only sports body in our country that is successful and profitable, facilities at the grassroots levels are fantastic. The infrastructure and coaching is good. All the ex players gets a good amount of pension, there was no need for this. Yes scandals were there, but then BCCI sacked Srinivasan and other players who were fixing. What more should BCCI do? BCCI have not violated any rules or law, SC acting like authoritarian is dangerous for this country. Instead of destroying the only profitable sports academy, SC should give judgement on lakhs of pending cases.
     
    GuardianRED likes this.
  7. dadeechi

    dadeechi Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    639
    Country Flag:
    India
    Yes as these are not truly private.

    Courts do have power to intervene if private entities like Tatas or Reliance fall under either Companies Act 2013 or The Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 . Remember these are not truly private as they raise money through stocks.

    http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesAct2013.pdf

    http://www.mca.gov.in/MinistryV2/llpact.html

    BCCI is registered under Tamil nadu societies registration act hence courts can surely intervene.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...nswerable-to-TN-govt/articleshow/20302654.cms

    'As a society, BCCI answerable to TN govt'
    A Subramani| TNN | May 28, 2013, 04.40 AM IST

    CHENNAI: BCCI president N Srinivasan may remain defiant, refusing to step down in the face of his son-in-law and CSK's former team principal Gurunath Meiyappan's arrest over charges of betting in IPL, but jurists argue that the Tamil Nadu government can step in to stem the rot if the stench of conflict of interest and financial irregularities spreads further in Indian cricket's apex governing body.

    "BCCI is a society which was registered in Tamil Nadu in the 1930s under the then Madras Societies Act and then continued to be an entity controlled by the TN Societies Registration Act, 1975. The state's registrar of societies can initiate a preliminary inquiry and then follow it up with a show-cause notice," said R Natarajan, who was the first to drag the BCCI and its then strongman Jagmohan Dalmiya to court a few years ago.

    "There were even attempts to shift the BCCI's registered office from Chennai to Mumbai. It was, however, challenged and foiled," said Natarajan.

    Section 36 of the Act empowers the inspector-general of registration and the district registrar concerned to inquire into financial mismanagement, malfeasance and contravention of other Rules, either suo motu or on petition from a majority or one-third members of the society concerned.

    Such exemplary measures as the issuing of show-cause notice and even appointment of a social officer are also being suggested by jurists.

    "A society has its own bylaws and rules. There is no scope for an outsider to come and say you are not running the society properly. But, the government can step in if the society is not run properly. If need be, issuing show-cause notice and appointing a special officer should be done within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act," said K Chandru, a former judge of the Madras high court.


    "In the Music Academy case, the authorities initiated an inquiry and even set criminal proceedings in motion following complaints," said former advocate general of Tamil Nadu N R Chandran. "In BCCI's case, the government does have the power to step in if the management and activities of the Board of Trustees go against the Act and Rules," he said.




    In 2005, BCCI even took a stand that its activities were beyond the purview of the state as well as the jurisdiction of courts. It is now a settled position that BCCI is a society, but it is amenable to writ proceedings because it is discharging a public function.




    "In the Zee Telefilms case, the Supreme Court has finally held that managing cricket affairs, conducting tournaments and telecasting matches are public duties of BCCI. Going by that logic, IPL and the fairness of its activities too can be monitored by the registrar who is the competent authority to regulate the affairs of a registered society," said advocate S Elambharathi.




    However, while agreeing that the state government has the power to step in, senior advocate and former advocate-general K Subramanian said the state government needs to have objective material before it can act. "In the ongoing controversy, where is the complaint or evidence? If actionable evidence is available, they might act," he said.



    "BCCI should have a credible mechanism to deal with relatively new challenges such as betting and match-fixing," he said, indicating that, otherwise, it would be left to the government to perform its duty.
     
  8. Kalmuahlaunda

    Kalmuahlaunda Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Country Flag:
    India
    You have merely stated what SC can do, Levina have already covered that part. Like I said just because SC can, doesn't mean it should. PM can declare emergency and put the opposition behind the bars, but is it advisable? SC created its own committee and recommendation, and forcing a private entity to go by its rules is plain absurd. If BCCI violates law, file a case against it, SC cannot just file its own complaint, and then give own verdict. This will set a dangerous precedent on the business culture in India. Understand this, SC judges are selected by CJI and Senior judges, which in turn is selected by President which is selected by the ruling government. In other words, GOI can indirectly interfere with any Private body citing this judgement in the future. Destroying the only profitable sports body, is plain stupidity, why not interfere in hockey and other sports administration where corruption is more rampant. A court which cannot even today give verdict to nibhaya is more interested in making BCCI transparent is laughable. Sab BC India mein Paise lutne k liye bante hai, chahe SC ho ya Typist
     
    dadeechi likes this.
  9. Mercury

    Mercury 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    222
    Country Flag:
    India
    Yes, BCCI is a "private body" or a society, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. However, BCCI has affiliated itself to ICC thus responsible for cricket in India. Team members selected by BCCI can represent India for international events.

    SC interference came based on the events happened after Bihar Cricket Association filed a case against BCCI on administration in 2012, http://www.news18.com/news/politics/let-cricket-be-a-game-not-a-ball-for-politicians-sc-523695.html (What is the role of BJP and RJD in cricket administration?)

    Followed by the IPL betting case filed by Delhi police in 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...PL-match-fixing-scam/articleshow/51637833.cms.

    Whatever SC is ruling or recommending now is based on these cases.
     
  10. Lion of Rajputana

    Lion of Rajputana Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    1,567
    Country Flag:
    United States
    This is a worrying development and a bad precedent that the SC should interfere in this. Closest analogy to this is the PCB.
     

Share This Page