The game needs new people to come in: Justice Lodha

RM Lodha, the retired Chief Justice of India, was visibly pleased with the sequence of events on Monday (July 18). Twelve months and numerous hearings later, a two-member Supreme Court bench led by Ibrahim Kalifulla ratified majority of the structural and functional reforms put forth by the Lodha panel in January 2016. The apex court, during its verdict, also gave the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) six months to implement the various recommendations.


Chief among the Lodha directives were the age cap on BCCI's office bearers and the recommendation to prohibit ministers and bureaucrats from participating in the board's affairs - a move that stands to sideline several veteran administrators who've been integral to the rise of BCCI as the sport's most influential body. Acknowledging contributions of former presidents NKP Salve and Jagmohan Dalmiya, former office bearers who served efficiently well past the age of 70, Justice Lodha opined that younger, more active administrators were the need of the hour.
"Ministers have many important things to do and surely a game like cricket or any sport requires full-time (administration)," Lodha told NDTV. "A minister is not able to give full-time, so is the case with a bureaucrat. It's not that only ministers or bureaucrats can move things [clear red-tapes smoothly]. If you are doing the things in a right way, everyone will be able to help you. Ministers and bureaucrats, because of their very obligation to the government, cannot give sufficient time.
"The game is always wanting new people to come in. If people at the age of 70 continue to administer the game, how will people of the younger generation enter the administration of the game? It has to be a good combination of the young and the old. People who have attained the age of 70, they have given so much for the game, and if they retire gracefully it is good for the game."
Justice Lodha also reiterated his stance that wholesale changes to BCCI's administration were needed due to a basic lack of accountability and transparency in the board. "We thought professional management is required and management should be separated from the governance. So the entire structure that has been suggested by us separates day-to-day management from the governance. Day-to-day management is now given in the hands of professional people."