Cricket administration: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Conflict of interest
Manoj Mitta, Nov 30 2014
Supreme Court's own role in Srinivasan's `conflict of interest'
The contention that cricket administrator N Srinivasan was involved in a conflict of interest was “thoroughly misconceived“, “substance-less“ and proceeded on “a complete misconception of what T20 matches are all about“. No, these are not the words of counsel representing Srinivasan or BCCI in the ongoing battle before the Supreme Court on the IPL betting scandal. Rather, they are part of a controversial verdict given over three years ago by a judge of the same court on the same conflict of interest.
In April 2011, the presiding judge of a bench, JM Panchal, exonerated Srinivasan on the charge of conflict of interest while dismissing an appeal filed against a Madras high court decision by his predecessor in the BCCI, AC Muthiah. Justice Panchal did so citing two broad reasons.The first was that all decisions in BCCI including those relating to IPL were taken collectively , not by Srinivasan alone. The other reason was Muthiah's failure to show “how BCCI was put to financial loss because of participation by (Srinivisan) in bidding process for the IPL team“.
It could not however prevent the conflict of interest issue from resur facing in 2013 after the IPL betting revelations. Srinivasan could not shield himself with Panchal's judg ment as it had actually been neutral ized by a contrary view taken by the other member of his bench, Justice Gyan Sudha Misra. Besides endors ing Muthiah's allegation of conflict of interest, Misra said that if Srini vasan wanted to remain the Chen nai franchisee of IPL, “he shall be at liberty to do so but in that event he shall be restrained from holding any office in the BCCI in any capaci ty whatsoever“.
Since the two-judge bench deliv ered a `split verdict', it was incum bent on the Chief Justice of India to refer the matter to a larger bench But that never happened. The insti tutional failure to follow up on this matter of great public importance is a contributory factor in the latest crisis facing Indian cricket. This is evident from the fact that much of the scathing observations made by the current bench of Justices TS Thakur and FM Ibrahim Kalifullah are so reminiscent of the stand taken by Justice Misra in her 2011 judgment. In the 2011 case, upholding the award of Chennai franchise to India Cements, Panchal had said: “The re cord does not indicate that any franchisee or any member of BCCI has complained of any alleged conflict of in terest. It is nobody's case that the team was purchased by the respondent for a smug (sic) and that he had prevented others who wanted to offer more price for purchase of the team and thereby caused financial loss to BCCI. Thus, the plea of conflict of interest is substance-less and is hereby rejected“.
Tracing the growing popularity of T20 cricket at the expense of the traditional formats of the game, Panchal endorsed the IPL formula of conducting the matches “purely on commercial lines“. In his opinion, “it stands to reason that any person who is interested in the game should be able to participate in the commercial aspect of T20“.
India in ODIs without MS Dhoni
The Times of India, Jul 7, 2015
Jamie Alter,
How India have fared in ODIs without MS Dhoni
Here is a look at the replacement skippers appointed for various past series and how India fared under them.
Under Suresh Raina
In the summer of 2010, Dhoni was given a break for a triangular tournament in Zimbabwe, with Raina given the leadership of a weakened side. India lost to Zimbabwe twice in that series and failed to reach the final.
In the summer of 2011, following India's successful World Cup title win, the BCCI send an inexperienced side to the West Indies, one missing Virender Sehwag, Gambhir and Yuvraj Singh. Raina was chosen to lead, and under him India won 3-2. Raina did not impose himself on the series - he made 82 runs in five innings - but Rohit Sharma rose to the occasion with 247 in as many innings to be named Man of the Series. West Indies won the last two ODIs to avoid a total rout.
In June 2014, just after the IPL, Raina was recalled and made captain for a three-match tour of Bangladesh which a second-string side won 2-0. The rain-hit series was most famous for Stuart Binny's record figures of 6 for 4 in the second ODI. The third game was washed out.
Under Gautam Gambhir
India were led by the opener Gambhir for a five-ODI series at home against New Zealand in late 2010, and won 5-0. Gambhir scored two unbeaten centuries at over a run-a-ball in the second and third ODIs in Jaipur and Vadodara to hasten eight and nine-wicket wins respectively.
Under Virender Sehwag
In November 2011, Dhoni was rested for a five-ODI series at home against West Indies. This was the series in which Sehwag scored 219 to become just the second batsman, after Sachin Tendulkar, to cross the double-hundred mark in ODIs. After scores of 20, 26 and 0, Sehwag smashed 219 from 149 balls in the fourth match in Indore to propel India to 418. They won by 153 runs to take an unassailable 3-1 lead. Sehwag did not play the last ODI in Chennai, which India won by 34 runs under Gambhir to win the contest 4-1.
Under Virat Kohli
Having led in three of five games during a tri-series in the West Indies in the Caribbean in 2013, Kohli got his first shot at leading the team shortly afterwards for an entire tour when the BCCI send a weakened side to Zimbabwe for five games. They blanked the hosts 5-0, with Kohli scoring 115, 14 and 68* in three innings. Next, Kohli led India during the 2014 Asia Cup where the team failed to make the final, losing to Sri Lanka and Pakistan narrowly.
Kohli's next assignment was five ODIs at home in November 2014, with Dhoni again absent. India won 5-0, Kohli having a strong series with 329 runs at 82.25.
Under Ajinkya Rahane?
With Kohli among the large group of senior players rested, a depleted Indian side have a fresh captain for the tour of Zimbabwe. Rahane has led in just two matches in senior representative cricket and must be a bit miffed at being dropped in Bangladesh, so it will be of particular interest as to how he copes with trying to work his way back into the ODI XI once normal service is restored, as well with the "surprise" burden of being captain.
Court judgements
Cricket bodies run on business lines, SC/2022
Amit Anand Choudhary, Oct 21, 2022: The Times of India
NEW DELHI: Holding that cricket associations are run on business lines, the Supreme Court said that the activities of sports bodies, including the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), cannot fall within the meaning of ‘education’ to claim tax exemption as they spend insignificant amounts of money on coaching camps or academies. After analysing the account books of Gujarat Cricket Association and Saurashtra Cricket Association, a bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha also said that administrative bodies may not come within the ambit of ‘general public utility’ (GPU) to get tax exemption.
The bench said the high court and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) have erred in coming to the conclusion that the associations are involved in charitable activities and the funds given by BCCI is some sort of a subsidy. The issue of income tax exemptions for sports bodies was part of the order related to GPUs, which also dealt with professional bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, trade agencies as well as state housing and industrial corporations.
“On a close scrutiny of the expenses borne, having regard to the nature of receipts, the expenditure incurred by cricket associations does not disclose that any significant proportion is expended towards sustained or organised coaching camps or academies. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the ITAT fell into error in not considering the nature of receipts flowing from the BCCI into the corpus of GCA and SCA — as well as other associations,” the bench said.
The associations submitted that the sport of cricket is a form of education, and they operate purely to promote the sport and they should not be considered as pursuing activities in furtherance of trade, commerce or business.
The court, however, said that the term ‘education’ used in Section 2(15) of IT Act means formal schooling and turned down the plea saying, “there is no doubt that the claim of the present sport associations will not fall within ‘education’”.
“It is quite evident that the activities of the cricket associations are run on business lines. The associations own physical and other infrastructure, maintain them, have arrangements for permanent manpower ,” the court said.
Referring to the auction of media rights to broadcast cricket by BCCI and passing on proceeds of sale to state associations which are entitled to 70% of the revenue, the bench said this forms part of the arrangement by which the consideration flowing from such commercial rights has been agreed to be shared amongst all members of the BCCI and these rights are apparently commercial.
“In the light of these, the court is of the opinion that the ITAT, as well as the high courts, fell into error in accepting at face value the submission that the amounts made over by BCCI to the cricket associations were in the nature of infrastructure subsidy. In each case, and for every year, the tax authorities are under an obligation to carefully examine and see the pattern of receipts and expenditure,” it said.
“Whilst doing so, the nature of rights conveyed by the BCCI to the successful bidders, in other words, the content of broadcast rights as well as the arrangement with respect to state associations (either in the form of master documents, resolutions or individual agreements with state associations) have to be examined,” the bench said, added that its observations are not to be treated as final and the parties’ contentions in this regard are to be considered on their merit.
