Debate over SC verdict on reforms in BCCI seems unending

New Delhi, Aug 21 (PTI) A month after the historic apexcourt verdict favouring a clean-up operation in the BCCI,debate over it seems to be unending with some experts termingit as "glaring unconstitutionality" while others think thejudgement has basis as the question of public interest andpublic money is involved in the matter. The cricket body chose former apex court judge MarkandeyKatju to take head-on the top court and speak on its behalf toreportedly describe the verdict as "unconstitutional" whichamounts to "throwing the law to the winds". However, former CJI Justice R M Lodha, who headed thepanel of judges to make recommendations, reacted saying theapex court’s verdict was the "final word" in the dispute. He got the support from noted constitutional expertGovind Goel, who said the Supreme Court is fully entitled tolook into the affairs of the Board as public interest andpublic money are involved in it. However, Goel, who recently came out with a two-volumebook — a compilation of constitutional bench judgements ofthe Supreme Court which was released in presence of PresidentPranab Mukherjee, said he has only reservation to the extentthat the matter should not be left to the Lodha panel afterthe verdict and the court should have asked the government toinvolve its agencies by roping in experts from the sports tocarry forward with the recommendations. He also expressed his reservation on Justice Katjuaccepting the offer of the BCCI to head the four-member panelto "advise and guide" on the apex court’s verdict saying thatArticle 124 (7) puts a bar on the former judges of SupremeCourt to plead or act in any court or before any authority inIndia. However, BCCI, which has sought review of the judgement,got a support from senior advocate Anoop George Chaudhari, whotermed it as "glaring unconstitutionality". Commenting on the judgement, Chaudhari said the verdictis per-in-curium (a judgment which was decided without areference to an earlier relevant judgments) the earlierconstitution bench judgments which were binding on the twojudge bench. The debate over the apex court verdict is significant asBCCI has filed review petition while Cricket Association ofBihar through its secretary Aditya Verma has filed a contemptpetition against the BCCI office bearers for allegedly making’libelous’ statements. Chaudhari further pointed out that a body or authoritymust have all the "trappings" of a state within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the Constitution in order to be amenable to thewrit jurisdiction. (MORE) PTI MNL SJK RKS ZMNRCJ