&w=3840&q=100)
Explained: How National Sports Bill could give 70-year-old BCCI president Roger Binny a new three-year term
Roger Binny has turned 70 and was at risk of disqualification due to BCCI's age rule. AFP
The passing of the National Sports Governance Bill 2025 in Parliament has opened the door for Roger Binny to extend his tenure as the BCCI president well beyond the earlier cut-off age of 70. Earlier, the Supreme Court-approved BCCI constitution had a clause that said any office bearer who turns 70 is disqualified from holding the post.
Binny, who turned 70 in July this year, was at risk of being disqualified from his position because of that rule. However, after the passage of the National Sports Bill, which brings the apex cricketing body under the purview of the government by classifying it as a National Sports Federation (NSF), Binny can remain the president.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
How Binny can stay on as BCCI president
The new bill has raised the maximum age limit for office bearers of all National Sports Federations from 70 to 75 on condition that their respective international bodies don't have any restriction. The International Cricket Council (ICC) does not have any age bar for office bearers, which makes Binny eligible to continue in his role if BCCI's state unit members don't have any issue.
Binny can not only complete his stint till the Annual General Meeting (AGM) in September but also serve another full three-year term if re-elected as the age limit has been increased to 75. However, the decision still depends on internal stakeholders, who can take a call on this in the AGM.
'Roger will continue till board meeting in September. Whether he will get a fresh term depends on what members and other powerful people associated with the BCCI decide,' a board source told PTI on conditions of anonymity.
Meanwhile, the Right To Information (RTI) Act won't be applicable to the country's richest sporting body which doesn't take any grant from the government. The BCCI's legal team is still studying the fine print of the bill.
'The national sports bill has just been passed, so, we have some time to study it and engage in proper discussion before taking any decision,' the source said.
'There are other points to discuss in the bill for sure, and all the stakeholders, including senior players and coaching staff, will be consulted, particularly because cricket will be played at the 2028 Olympics,' he added.
Binny was appointed BCCI president in October 2022, replacing former India captain Sourav Ganguly.
(With agency inputs)
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Governor withholding Bill without asking Assembly to reconsider is counterproductive: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that if a governor decides to "withhold" a bill passed by a state legislature without even asking the latter to reconsider or modify the bill, it would be "counterproductive to the powers of governor and the legislative process ". The Constitution bench headed by CJI BR Gavai, presiding over a presidential reference case on whether SC can lay down timelines and procedures for the president and state governors, also questioned whether the governor can be vested with the power to permanently withhold assent to a bill. Speaking for the five-member bench, the CJI verbally remarked: "In case a governor has the power to permanently withhold assent to the bills passed by the state legislature, it would leave the elected state government at the whims and fancies of an unelected governor." The CJI further added that the governor will then have ample powers to sit over bills and withhold it for time immemorial. Speaking about the power of discretion of governors , the CJI verbally remarked "We have seen recent examples where governors have used discretion leading to so many litigations." He added the "presumption always is that those holding constitutional office would act in bonafide". Weighing in, justice Surya Kant orally remarked that the governor ought to give reasons for withholding a bill: "Otherwise how would a judicial review happen?" Live Events Justice Kant said: "If we are talking about wider powers of the governor then why this curtailment? What prevents him from returning it (to the state legislature) with the message (his objections on a bill)." Appearing on behalf of the Centre, solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a governor can withhold assent to a bill, making it "fall through" with no option to send it back to the legislature. He contended that the office of governor or president is not merely a "post man". Mehta added that a governor is "not powerless". Elaborating, he contended "an individual indirectly elected is no lesser than an individual who is directly elected". The bench queried about the "meaning" of the word "withhold" and whether any debate has taken place on "withhold" in the Parliament. The bench also verbally remarked that the interpretation of the Constitution "cannot be static". The solicitor general also argued that a governor's power to withhold is to be used rarely. " the Union of India, appointed by the president. The president is elected by the entire nation by way of the entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression," he submitted.
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
130th Constitution Amendment Bill sparks Opposition uproar in Parliament
Synopsis Amit Shah presented a bill to amend the Constitution. The bill focuses on removing arrested officials. This includes the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers. The removal applies after 30 days of detention for serious crimes. The proposal sparked protests in the Parliament. The bills were then sent to a joint committee for review. The House was adjourned amid disruptions.
NDTV
30 minutes ago
- NDTV
Set Up Team To Probe Rahul Gandhi's Vote Theft Claims: Petition In Top Court
New Delhi: A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of a special investigation team headed by a former judge to inquire into allegations of electoral roll manipulation in Bengaluru Central and other affected constituencies and cited the August 7 press conference by Rahul Gandhi where he presented data to buttress these claims. The plea also sought the top court's direction that no further revision or finalisation of electoral rolls be undertaken until compliance with the court's directions and the completion of an independent audit of the rolls. The petition, filed by advocate Rohit Pandey, referred to the August 7 press conference by Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Gandhi where he had made explosive claims of a "huge criminal fraud" in polls through "collusion" between the BJP and the Election Commission and had cited an analysis of voter rolls in a constituency in Karnataka last year. Soon after Mr Gandhi levelled the charge asserting that "vote chori" (vote theft) is an "atom bomb on our democracy", the Chief Electoral Officers of Karnataka and Maharashtra had asked the former Congress chief to share names of electors he claimed were "wrong" in the voters' list along with a signed declaration for poll authorities to initiate "necessary proceedings" in the matter. On August 17, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had said Mr Gandhi should either give a declaration under oath within seven days on his allegations of irregularities in the voter list, or else his 'vote theft' claims would be rendered baseless and invalid. The plea filed in the top court has urged the court to issue binding guidelines to the Election Commission to ensure transparency, accountability and integrity in the preparation, maintenance and publication of electoral rolls, including mechanisms for detection and prevention of duplicate or fictitious entries. It also sought a direction to the EC to publish electoral rolls in accessible, machine-readable and OCR-compliant formats to enable meaningful verification, audit and public scrutiny. "The petitioner has observed grave irregularities in the electoral rolls of Bengaluru Central Parliamentary Constituency (Mahadevapura Assembly Constituency), which, on the face of it, warrant urgent consideration by this court," the plea said. It said that the intervention by the top court was essential to uphold and preserve the sanctity of the Constitution, which could only be effectively ensured by the court. The plea claimed that in Maharashtra, after the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and prior to the Assembly elections, within a span of around four months, about 39 lakh new voters were added to the electoral roll, whereas in the preceding five years, only around 50 lakh voters were added. "Such a sudden and disproportionate increase raises a serious question on the transparency of the Election Commission in the process of addition of names to the voter list," the plea said. It said the top court has consistently held that free and fair elections constitute part of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution and cannot be diluted or subverted by any legislative or executive action. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
