The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing on the matter related to the amendments in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) rules.
A bench of justice DY Chandrachud adjourned the matter for hearing on Thursday. The court was hearing the matter of changing BCCI rules relating to the “cooling off” period for the President, secretary and other office bearers.
On August 24, the top court said that a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud will hear the plea relating to the BCCI administration, observing that he was part of the bench which passed the earlier order in the issue.
The court was hearing a petition related to the amendments in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) constitution.
A plea had been filed by BCCI seeking permission to change the rules relating to the “cooling off” period for the president, secretary and other office bearers. The petition also sought a direction for the extension of the tenure of BCCI President, Sourav Ganguly and Secretary Jay Shah.
The petition was filed in 2020.
The tenure of Sourav Ganguly as BCCI president and Jay Shah as BCCI secretary is set to expire in September 2022.
In 2019, the General Body of the BCCI during an AGM on December 1, 2019, proposed six amendments, including one in Rule 6 of the Constitution, which had barred BCCI and state board office bearers from holding office for more than 6 consecutive years.
According to the current rules, any person who has been an office bearer in the BCCI or state Cricket body, or any combination, has to undergo a mandatory 3-year “cooling off period” following a maximum six-year term in office.
During this period, they cannot hold office in either a state body or in the BCCI. This would effectively bar the current office bearers of the BCCI
from holding any posts either in the BCCI or any state board, for the next three years.
Before his appointment to the BCCI, Ganguly had served as president of the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) since 2014, while Jay Shah was an office bearer in Gujarat Cricket Association since 2013. At present, their tenure is technically under “extension” since the Supreme Court had not heard the plea for amendment of the rules or given any orders regarding their removal from office.