The Law Commission of India has bowled a bouncer at Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) recommending board and its constituent member cricketing associations stating that they be treated like other public bodies and brought under the RTI Act. The proposal threatens to cripple the essential freedoms of the board and also deal a death blow to its autonomous functioning.
However, the law panel’s masterstroke has arguments on either side of the fence. The board has been the cynosure of all eyes, across the sports fraternity and the political class, for the money it has been churning. Frequently, fingers have been pointed over the state of affairs and mismanagement of the board with even the Supreme Court taking note. And there were questions that were raised over the finances.
Besides making the BCCI amenable to public queries under RTI, the law commission proposed that the board be treated as a public body and not a private one. This would actually mean that the board could be taken to court for various human rights violations, where every single decision is liable for questioning. This includes player selection and even commentator selection. It means the BCCI will be exposed to PILs from time to time, questioning fairness of its decisions. In the broader picture, even agreements with nations and the ICC will be open for questioning. Transparency and answerability will be the focus.
All of the above looks fine on paper, but again there will be several questions that will crop up. Is the big money in the sport forcing the government to arm-twist the board in the name of transparency? And why is it that the government is seeking transparency in only the cricket board and not all other sports bodies? Does it mean other sports organisations are transparent and BCCI is not? Has the lure of big bucks in BCCI tempted politicos to jump into the bandwagon? And finally, is this the only way to fix the mess within the BCCI?
That there are big skeletons in the BCCI closet is a foregone conclusion. On the administration side, BCCI has a history of non-players holding on to the reins. Individuals who have never been on the cricket field have been basking in the limelight managing the sport and calling the shots. There has been huge money splashed on international tours by not just cricket bureaucrats, but also their families and friends. The list goes on.
The rot in the BCCI has to be fixed, but the approach should be a well-planned and studied one, since history suggests that government-controlled federations across the nation have not tasted much success.
While financial dealings should be brought under the ambit of RTI, there need to be boundary lines drawn on other aspects of the functioning of the BCCI. Mechanisms should be worked out with various stakeholders in the sport, otherwise the courts will be flooded with PILs over issues like individual player selection and every single decision of the board.
