SC v/s BCCI: The role of Markandey Katju in the war of words

From calling Lodha panel's report as unconstitutional to requesting recusal of CJI, Katju's introduction into the fight has put the focus back on the case

The appointment of Markandey Katju, a former Supreme Court judge, as the head of a panel to help BCCI understand Lodha Committee’s recommendations has added another twist in the tale.

The Board, on August 2, decided to make Katju as the "single point interface to interact with the Justice Lodha Committee as well advise and guide" the body. 

However, a war of words has emerged among the entities, with them challenging the constitutionality of the appointment. The latest salvo to be fired by BCCI against the Supreme Court order is its request to recuse Chief Justice of India TS Thakur on the back of bias against the Board.  

 

Meanwhile, just a day after the appointment, a member of the Lodha panel called the act illegal. "I am aware that the BCCI has appointed Katju as the head of the panel that will deliberate with us. But then, they don't realise that Katju is barred by the constitution from doing so. Any retired Supreme Court judge can only be a part of arbitration and can't fight anybody's case or appear on behalf of anybody. I think Katju needs to go and check the constitution," Gopal Sankaranarayanan told Mail Today.

Days after that Katju tore into the Lodha panel’s recommendations, terming it unconstitutional. 

“What the Supreme Court has done is unconstitutional and illegal. There has been violation of principles of the Constitution. Under our Constitution, we have legislature, executive and judiciary. There is a broad separation of functions. It's the legislature's prerogative to make laws. If judiciary starts making laws, one is setting a dangerous precedent," he said. "I have advised them (BCCI) to file a review petition before a larger bench. In this case, the Supreme Court outsourced a committee (referring to Lodha Committee) to decide on BCCI's punishment.”

In fact, he also advised the Board to ignore the summons by the panel. However, the act implies a charge of contempt of court if the members fail to appear before the Lodha panel, says this Hindustan Times report. In its order, the Supreme Court had said, “Should any impediments arise, the committee shall be free to seek appropriate directions from this court by filing a status report in that regard.” 

The recusal request, some board members feel, is also done on the advice of Katju, according to a report in The New Indian Express. “These are strong words, and from the BCCI’s point of view, perhaps the only line of argument. Another bench of judges might look at our case differently. If Justice Katju thinks this is way forward, we have to see if there’s anything for us,” a BCCI working committee member told the newspaper.