Let the new administrators call a meeting and amend the constitution, says Ajay Shirke
Ajay Shirke Ajay Shirke
What is your reaction to the Supreme Court order?
No reaction. I haven’t read the entire order. What I have heard is that they have removed me and Anurag. That’s fine. For an order as simple as that, there’s nothing to react.
The court has said that every office-bearer in the board and state associations who are ineligible as per the Lodha Committee recommendations will have to go…
Let the BCCI, which is the parent body and against whom the directives are given, first implement the Lodha reforms. The states will get it done. Administrators will be entrusted with the job to get it done, so they will get it done. Saying that we were obstructing (the implementation); now they will have their own people, which in a way is good; that the court has taken the responsibility and will put it to an independent set of administrators.
Several administrators in the Indian cricket set-up will have to demit office…
No, no. First, let the BCCI implement the Lodha reforms. They were saying that because of Anurag Thakur or secretary or whoever, the recommendations couldn’t be implemented. Now let them adopt it. Tomorrow, it shouldn’t happen that the states have adopted it and the BCCI couldn’t.
But to adopt the reforms, the BCCI will have to amend its constitution…
Correct. Maybe, when the administrators come and take the vote again, they will take care of the majority. We don’t know. That hasn’t been described in the judgment or mentioned in anything I have heard.
Has the court issued a show-cause notice against you for non-compliance ?
No. Not against me at all.
But you had to adhere to the Societies Act.
Of course. All laws of the land have to be obeyed and respected. Since the BCCI is a society registered under the Societies Act, the board is bound to comply with the requirements of the Societies Act. The Lodha Committee told us to go back to the members and ask them to adopt the (new) constitution. If there’s a statement or allegation that we prevented the reforms, where’s the evidence for that? We called three meetings. After the BCCI funding to the state associations was stopped by the court, we asked the members if they wanted to reconsider. They said ‘no’.
The first India-England ODI is in Pune, your home association. Do you see any uncertainty following the court order?
No. Absolutely not. My entire association will be there to run the match. If the BCCI decides not to hold it, that’s a different matter.
Do you agree that in pursuit of removing N Srinivasan, a section of the BCCI weakened its own position?
Srinivasan went to the Supreme Court. Srinivasan himself challenged the order of the inquiry against Gurunath Meiyappan. The BCCI members have got nothing to do with it.
But during the legal battle, the common perception was that Aditya Verma (original petitioner) had the backing of some Indian cricket administrators.
I don’t know who is Aditya Verma and what is his locus standi. He doesn’t represent any cricket association recognised by the BCCI. The whole matter, you know, is proceedings of public interest litigation. He comes there only as a public interest litigant. He has got nothing to do with any recognised cricket association in India. Who is he and whose man he is, who is behind whom – I have no idea…
Do you agree that Srinivasan cannot absolve himself from this?
Absolutely. No question about that. That’s why I had resigned that time and I also said, ‘If you stretch this to a point, you bring it to the breaking point and you will destroy the board’. That’s exactly what has happened. If he had stepped down and conducted an impartial inquiry, because he himself is not involved in any corruption, trouble could have been avoided.