User Review( votes)
As per documents accessed by IANS, the CoA has stated that Arunachal Pradesh Cricket Association, Chhattisgarh State Cricket Sangh, Cricket Association of Bengal, Goa Cricket Association, Haryana Cricket Association, Jharkhand State Cricket Association, Karnataka State Cricket Association, Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association, Rajasthan Cricket Association and Tamil Nadu Cricket Association are still to amend their constitution in accordance with the new BCCI constitution, as of August 13.
The CoA documents further state that there are 14 state bodies which till now have not appointed the electoral officers. Out of these 14, Saurashtra Cricket Association, Baroda Cricket Association, Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association, Odisha Cricket Association and Cricket Association of Uttarakhand have just been inducted as member association as a full member and accordingly, CoA will be communicating amendments required in their constitution.
While the CoA has claimed that those not abiding will be left without a vote, BCCI lawyers and state associations are of the view that this is for the apex court to decide.
They feel that till the time the top court hears out the state associations and their issues, the CoA can’t decide on whether they are compliant or not.
Speaking to IANS, state associations’ lawyer Amol Chitale made it clear that as far as the state associations are concerned, it was for the Supreme Court to decide if an association has complied or not.
“What has happened is that the BCCI constitution was approved by the Supreme Court and then they said that the state associations were required to register their constitutions on similar lines. All the state associations have either amended their constitutions and got them registered or have resolved to do so. Now, those constitutions were sent to the CoA to check if they are in order or not. Then the CoA has sent certain points and said these are not in consonance with the BCCI constitution,” Chitale said.
BCCI lawyer Gunjan Rishi said that this situation has arisen on account of different interpretations being given to the phrase “similar lines”. He said that while the CoA has attempted to interpret it to mean that it should be a mirror image, the state bodies have been advised that this is not the case and therefore they have gone to the apex court to seek clarity while the CoA appears to be acting upon it despite the obvious confusion. There are other such issues as well.