The capping of upper age limit to 70 years for office bearers of BCCI and three-year term at a stretch will come into operation with the Supreme Court today accepting Justice R M Lodha committee's recommendation saying it was not "unreasonable or irrational" by any standard.
The top court referred to National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 which stipulated that president, secretary and treasurer of any recognised national sports federation, including Indian Olympic Association (IOA), shall cease to hold the post on attaining the age of 70 years.
It also gave its stamp of approval to the recommendations which prescribed a cooling off period between two terms and an optimum period of nine years as a member of the apex council.
"There is no denying the fact that cricketers who play competitive cricket generally fall in the age group of 18 to 35 years. This implies that even after retirement from active cricket anyone who has the potential to contribute to the game can do so for over three decades till he attains the age of 70 years," a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice F M I Kalifulla said.
"The upper age limit recommended by the Lodha Committee is not, therefore, unreasonable or irrational by any standard," it said, adding, "The upper age limit of 70 years is not, therefore, an unusual or unacceptable norm so as to warrant our interference with the same."
The bench also dealt with the recommendations proposing a cap on the number of terms for which an officer bearer can serve, the optimum period for which one can be a member of the apex council and also about cooling off period between two terms.
Regarding the three-year term recommended by the panel, the bench said it was "reasonable".
"Given the problems that often arise on account of individuals holding office for any number of consecutive terms, the Committee was, in our opinion, justified in recommending the length of a term in office," it said.
"So also, the prescription of cooling off period between two terms cannot be faulted. Similarly, an optimum period of 9 years as a member of the apex council cannot also be termed as unreasonable," the bench said in its 143-page verdict.
The apex court said that grounds for disqualification like
unsoundness of mind, the member becoming a minister or holding a membership in any sporting body, also meet the requirement of "reasonableness and do not call for interference from the court".
"The contention that the recommendations have no rationale or that the same are contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act deserve notice only to be rejected," it said.
The court also dealt with the panel's recommendation on overhaul of the existing committees of BCCI on the ground that they do not have clearly defined terms of reference.
"The Committee has on the basis of a thorough consideration and deliberation with all concerned recommended that the BCCI ought to adopt an approach that would institutionalize the management of its administrative affairs rather than such affairs being run on an ad-hoc basis," it noted.
It said that on that premise, the panel has recommended an administrative set up which it has evolved on the basis of its interactions with people who have the necessary expertise and insight into the needs of BCCI and its associations.
"We, therefore, see no compelling reason for us to reject the recommendation made by the Committee, especially when the objective underlying the said recommendation is not only laudable but achievable through the medium of the change recommended by the Committee," the bench said.
