There is little doubt that Indian cricket and its governing body, the Board of Control for Cricket in India or BCCI, are both in need of a clean-up. But in spite of that, the Supreme Court's question as to why the state cannot carry out the BCCI's public functions is difficult to understand. A two-judge bench wondered why, for example, Parliament could not pick the Indian team. The matter at hand was the implementation of the recommendations of the Court-ordered Lodha committee into the functioning of the BCCI that was set up in the wake of the IPL 2013 spot-fixing scandal. The committee submitted its report to the Court in early January of 2016, saying that the BCCI had not taken any "steps to prevent the sport from an orgy of excess". However, some specific recommendations have proved controversial - for example, the one suggesting ministers and public officials not be cricket administrators. The committee's suggestion of a 'one state, one vote' system, which would disempower traditional cricket associations in Baroda and Mumbai, is also being contested legally.
Certainly, many of the Lodha committee suggestions make sense. But the cricket associations' argument that, given they are private entities, the state has a limited right to interfere in their functioning, has considerable force. Whether or not cricket is a game in which the public at large has an interest is irrelevant; the principle of government non-intervention in the affairs of private concerns like the BCCI should be paramount. After all, the "Indian" team is simply the players selected by one private organisation, the BCCI, to represent it in tournaments organised by another private organisation, the International Cricket Council or ICC. When seen this way, it is difficult to see how it is Parliament's business at all.
The counter-argument would be that, even if the BCCI is merely sending players to represent it at the ICC's tournaments, there is still a "national" character to the activity, with the playing eleven supposedly representing India. However, this can easily be dealt with: first, by allowing alternative boards to spring up, and not creating a monopoly for the BCCI over Indian cricket; and second, by ensuring that the "India" name cannot be used by a team - whether in cricket or in any other sport - without the selection and other processes following certain norms of transparency. For example, any funds gained from the use of the "India" name could be made subject to investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India if necessary. Alternatively, and this may be a better solution, since these are all bodies registered under the Societies Act, the registrar of societies must stop being a toothless outfit that has long gone to sleep.
