In its review plea, the BCCI has also contended that the judgement was 'unreasoned' and 'seeks to frame legislative measures for a private autonomous society in a field already occupied by legislations, both parliamentary and state'. Photograph: (AFP)
BCCI has also sought recusal of chief justice TS Thakur from hearing the matter, alleging he had 'a prejudiced approach' against it
The Supreme Court of India today deferred its hearing by two weeks on a petition filed by Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) seeking a review of its July 18 verdict directing it to implement the recommendations of justice RM Lodha panel on massive structural reforms in the cricket body.
The BCCI, in its review petition, has also sought recusal of chief justice TS Thakur from hearing the matter, alleging he had "a prejudiced approach" against it.
The hearing on the review petition, in which the BCCI has also demanded an open court hearing, was listed in the chamber by a bench comprising the CJI and justice SA Bobde which posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.
There are several others, including veteran cricket administrators Niranjan Shah and Chandu Borde, who have also sought the re-examination of the July 18 verdict.
The Cricket Association of Bihar, through its secretary Aditya Kumar Verma on whose petition the apex court had decided to pass a slew of directions for a massive restructuring of BCCI administration, has been opposing the Board.
In its review plea, the BCCI has also contended that the judgement was "unreasoned" and "seeks to frame legislative measures for a private autonomous society in a field already occupied by legislations, both parliamentary and state".
BCCI has further said the judgment authored by the CJI and justice FMI Kalifulla (since retired) has "neither noted the contentions and facts correctly nor dealt with the same".
"The judgment is unconstitutional and contrary to many binding precedents of this Court and adversely affects and nullifies the fundamental rights granted to citizens under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution," it has said, adding "the judgment outsources judicial power to a committee of retired judges, which is impermissible in law."
"The judgment is a nullity as the judges were functus officio after passing of the main judgment of January 22, 2015 and the matter could not have been revived suo motu as no provision of law empowers the same and is contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers and contrary to settled law that the judiciary cannot make laws," the BCCI has said.