The Committee of Administrators (CoA) reported to Supreme Court that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) needs to appoint an Ombudsman and an Ethics Officer as soon as possible to handle any disputes from Annual General Meeting (AGM) and elections.
The BCCI AGM date hasn’t been fixed yet as well as the elections date. CoA wants BCCI needs to appoint an Ombudsman and an Ethics Officer before the AGM and elections happen and they also give the reason to Supreme Court for this demand.
Talking about the appointment of Ombudsman, CoA report stated, “The newly registered constitution of BCCI requires the appointment of an Ombudsman at the Annual General Meeting for the purpose of providing an independent dispute resolution mechanism.
Also read: CoA member Diana Edulji asked Rahul Johri to resign from BCCI’s CEO post
“it is necessary that the first Ombudsman be appointed at the earliest so that the provisions relating to independent dispute resolution mechanism under the newly registered constitution can be implemented immediately.”
The two-member CoA added that the Ombudsman must be a retired judge or chief justice of a High Court and he must be given one-year tenure, along with the option to hold the post for maximum three terms.
To conduct the AGM, as per the new constitution approved by the Supreme Court on August 9, 2018, state associations have been given 30 days to comply. However, some of the state associations are opposing some of the reforms, like the age or tenure for office-bearers.
Meanwhile, CoA also gives the reason to appoint an Ethics Officer by stating in that report, “It is necessary that the first Ethics Officer of BCCI be appointed at the earliest so that the complaints related to Conflict of Interest can be considered and addressed by a duly qualified person.”
Also read: BCCI inside have different views regarding comply with NADA
In addition, CoA has also claimed for a forensic audit of state associations to deal with the misuse of funds. The CoA has also added that the seven state associations haven’t submitted the compliance report as well as haven’t amended their constitution, according to the Supreme Court’s order on August 9, 2018. These seven state associations are Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh.
Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Goa, Maharashtra, Bihar, Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Manipur, and Vidarbha are those state associations who have partially complied.
Mizoram, Puducherry, Delhi, Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Mumbai, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Saurashtra, Sikkim, Tripura, and Uttar Pradesh are the other state associations who substantially complied.
