DDCA Opposes Lodha Panel, Says Present System is Good Enough

The DDCA rejected a number of recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha committee on Wednesday.

Will the recommendations from the Justice Lodha Committee just find their way into a bin or will the Supreme Court actually force the BCCI to implement the changes? (Photo: PTI)

• The Delhi and Districts Cricket Association (DDCA) on Wednesday rejected a number of recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha committee.
• They asserted that the existing systems and procedures are capable of ensuring transparency in its functioning.
  
• The DDCA is against term limitations and in favour of continuing with the system of proxy voting.
  

The Delhi and Districts Cricket Association (DDCA) on Wednesday rejected a number of recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha committee, asserting that the existing systems and procedures are capable of ensuring transparency in its functioning.

The DDCA’s managing committee, which met here on Wednesday, refused to implement the Lodha committee’s recommendations.

Some of the recommendations that the Lodha committee had made were uniformity in constitution and functioning, putting state cricket associations under the Right to Information (RTI) act, elections and terms of officials.

DDCA is a section eight company and was registered under the Companies Act since 1936. In the given circumstances, it will not be possible/practical to make any adjustments for the sake of uniformity.

DDCA Statement

Regarding the term limitations proposed by the committee, the statement said that the election of office bearers is through a democratic process as per the constitution of the DDCA, and any limitation on its term is not justified.

The power to appoint electoral officer should rest with the executive committee as long as the committee does not observe any conflict of interest.

DDCA Statement

The DDCA is also in favour of continuing with the system of proxy voting.

The 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. Even after appointing a person as his proxy, any member of the 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.

DDCA Statement

The DDCA also differed with the Lodha panel’s call for barring officials of the respective state associations from holding posts in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

It is the freedom of the concerned state association. So long as the executive committee does not feel the functioning of the DDCA is being jeopardized, there cannot be any justified reason for imposing this clause.

DDCA Statement

It also opposed the proposed restrictions on commercials during telecast of matches on the ground that it would reduce revenue.

The DDCA also criticized the committee’s proposal to reduce the number of national selectotrs to three from the existing five.

The Supreme Court had formed the Lodha committee to clean up the workings of cricket administration in the country after the Indian Premier League (IPL) was hit by a corruption and match fixing scandal that saw Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals suspended for the next two years.

The committee has submitted an extensive report to the apex court that held oout a host of recommendations that could have far reaching effects if implemented.

However, several state associations, including the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB), have opposed several recommendations of the committee.