NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Court notices issued to BCCI, DDCA

Sudip Arora

The Delhi high court has asked the BCCI to file its response on a public interest litigation seeking independent investigation into its functioning and accounts for the past five years.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devender Gupta and Justice Cyriac Joseph also asked the Delhi and District Cricket Association, and the Federal government's department of sports and youth affairs, to respond in the matter.

The PIL called for ensuring that BCCI accounts are audited transparently by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that the board functions primarily for the promotion of cricket. They should not function as private empires of some businessmen and traders who have come to control and abuse cricket for their own interest and profit, the PIL argues.

The BCCI and the DDCA have acquired a monopoly status by virtue of government recognition and patronage, the PIL added. Only five per cent of 3,500 DDCA members have ever played cricket.

Petitioners Rahul Mehra and Shantanu Sharma said accounts show the DDCA recorded sale of Rs 33 lakh on liquor in 1998-99, which is nearly five times the total expenses on coaching and promotion of cricket over the past 11 years.

it may be noted that the BCCI spent Rs 65 lakh for committee meetings in the same year, and Rs 40 lakh for travel, they said. But coaching expenses were less than 2.2 per cent of the total expenditure. The BCCI profits have been climbing at the rate of 59 per cent per year and totalled Rs 8.37 crore in 1998-99 compared to Rs 5.06 lakh in 1987-88.

Listing several instances of discrepancies in sale of TV rights by the BCCI, the PIL said there is no transparency in the manner in which the bids are invited and contracts are awarded.

''The politics prevailing in the BCCI has almost led to seriously harming the entire selection process of national cricket team. It is reported to have resulted in ruining the career of some capable cricketers,'' it added.

The PIL argues that the organisers like the BCCI are under obligation to promote cricket. If they act contrary to the objective for which they were created and in the private interest of people who currently control these organisations, the court should issue directions to enforce these obligations.

UNI