CHENNAI: Courts adjourning a matter without hearing any argument isn't always significant. Wednesday's Supreme Court update in the BCCI case was different in that respect. There were two highlights in the court's decision to hear after two weeks the board's appeal to make changes in its constitution.
If this means status quo for a fortnight or so, it may not be mandatory for Sourav Ganguly to go by the existing rule and step aside as BCCI president after his term ends on July 26. Although the court has not said this, there were talks in board circles that as long as the petition is not dismissed, the office-bearers can remain in power. Jay Shah is continuing as secretary following this assumption, although there is another group which thinks disqualification becomes automatic after the stipulated date unless the court rules otherwise.
Second, the petition filed by BCCI wants major changes in the constitution registered in 2018 following a Supreme Court order. Other than modification of the cooling-off rule, the appeal seeks more power for elected office-bearers instead of paid executives and relaxation of the rule forbidding persons above 70 representing BCCI in ICC. In certain ways, it proposes a rollback to the pre-reform days with regards to several aspects. The court has not dismissed the application, which in effect is a plea to revise its own order.
Before the court had passed the final order making the new constitution mandatory for BCCI and the state associations, numerous petitions were filed seeking relaxation or modification of certain rules. Other than voting rights for multiple associations from one state (Gujarat and Maharashtra) and five-member selection committee, the court had rejected all other applications. That way, it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this appeal after having dismissed similar appeals in the past.
As far as tenures of the president and secretary case is concerned, the court's silence is a relief for those concerned about the immediate future of Ganguly and Shah in the board. There were talks at the top level that if the court does not reject the plea, it would mean the cooling-off amendment is under consideration. Those saying this will interpret the court's acceptance to hear the appeal as green light for the president and secretary to continue.