Justice Chandrachud headed bench to hear BCCI matter

New Delhi: A bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud will hear the plea relating to the BCCI administration, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana directed the matter to be listed before a bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud, observing that he was part of the bench which passed the earlier order in the issue. The court was hearing a petition related to the amendments in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) constitution.
A plea had been filed by BCCI seeking permission to change the rules relating to the "cooling off" period for the President, secretary and other office bearers. The petition also sought a direction for the extension of the tenure of BCCI President, Sourav Ganguly and Secretary Jay Shah. The petition was filed in 2020.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), earlier moved the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing on a plea for approval to amend six rules of the board's constitution.
The tenure of Sourav Ganguly as BCCI president and Jay Shah as BCCI secretary is set to expire in September 2022.
In 2019, the General Body of the BCCI during an AGM on December 1, 2019, proposed six amendments, including one in Rule 6 of the Constitution, which had barred BCCI and state board office bearers from holding office for more than 6 consecutive years.
According to the current rules, any person who has been an office bearer in the BCCI or state Cricket body, or any combination, has to undergo a mandatory 3-year "cooling off period" following a maximum six-year term in office.
During this period, they cannot hold office in either a state body or in the BCCI. This would effectively bar the current office bearers of the BCCI from holding any posts either in the BCCI or any state board, for the next three years.
Before his appointment to the BCCI, Ganguly had served as president of the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) in 2014, while Jay Shah was an office bearer in Gujarat Cricket Association since 2013. At present, their tenure is technically under "extension" since the Supreme Court had not heard the plea for amendment of the rules or given any orders regarding their removal from office. (ANI)