Nobody can doubt that cricket today is not just an obsession but has become the staple diet of most Indians. The passions the game arouses and the all-pervading influence it has on Indian society is clear. Equally, none can doubt the power and influence that courts headed by the apex court wield in the Indian firmament today. But some may wonder on the wisdom of a marriage of the two.
What started as the courts’ concern over possible malpractices in the game and its effect on millions of Indians, and the widespread gambling that had become associated with it has now virtually resulted in the court taking over the sport and becoming the Super Apex Board for Control of Cricket in India.
The concern from a lawyer’s point of view is the extent of incursion by courts in various non-legal facets of a citizen’s life and running of institutions, which have their own roles to play.
Undoubtedly, as evil a body as the BCCI is accused of having become, requiring the valuable time of the court being diverted from three crore pending cases affecting citizens in a more direct and important way, it is nonetheless a body that has not only controlled the one sport where the country has excelled but has also successfully eroded into the power and influence of the colonial forces which had hitherto controlled it. And now, the one sport body in this country is being virtually taken over by a panel of eminent judges whose eminence none can doubt. But alas! Not in the field of cricket, whether on or off the field. And yet, this panel is now deciding issues relating to the sport which were best left and most successfully dealt with by the body charged with the responsibility all these years.
While the court’s concern originated with alleged malpractices and an attempt to cleanse the same, the court-appointed panel has now involved itself in deciding as to how the body is to be administered, making a variety of “recommendations”, which the court has now indicated are mandates that shall be followed.
Of the various recommendations which virtually rewrite the BCCI’s constitution and regulations, let us consider some. A three-man selection committee only of internationally capped players, with the player with maximum caps being chairman. But why? A five-man committee of persons who, however many caps they may have or have not worn but well versed in the game, cannot be bad for the sport. Even Their Lordships sit in a Bench of five for important cases. The country would have lost some of its most eminent judges if the test had been, ‘Is he the most successful lawyer and has he argued the most cases?’ If the qualification of a chief justice was the judge who had either argued as a lawyer or effectively decided the most number of cases, one would wonder where we are heading.
Much of the Bar and, I daresay, the judiciary feel the mandatory age of retirement at 65 for judges is too early and we are deprived of good judges at the height of their prowess. Why then recommend this for those associated with the sport? The wisdom of those involved in all professions is meant to increase with the time spent in rendering their service. Then why restrict the terms of service of those involved with cricket? In any event, is this decision not best left to those involved with the game and is it not self-contradictory that while insisting that most aspects of the game should only be dealt with by those who have been concerned therewith, now a panel of whom none has been associated with the sport decides on how it is to be administered?
From a legal standpoint, when there is a society functioning under a statute which provides for regulations and regulatory bodies, should the court become a ‘super regulator’? Should the courts not confine judicial scrutiny into specific instances of failure of the statutory authorities dealing with issues and setting those right? These are the larger questions.
The worrying factor is: would not judicial time spent on non-judicial activities increase the pending cases to four crore or more, and in the bargain also undermine the bodies, which have regulated sports that have done India proud? That too, when the origin of the dispute that landed at the court’s door, as was well known, was a ‘public interest litigation’ sponsored by the person who started the rot, was unceremoniously dismissed, is on the run from Indian law and has publicly claimed credit for the aftermath. And emerged unscathed without a word against him in the legal proceedings.
And the final paradox—the basic cause of the entire issue taking up so much time of the court was the danger arising from widespread betting in the game, which the panel has now recommended should be legalised.
aryama_sundaram@hotmail.com
Sundaram is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court