New Delhi, August 30
The National Sports Legislation Bill failed to get approval at the Union Cabinet meeting today after several ministers and representatives of the Board of Control for Cricket (BCCI) objected to ‘intrusive’ clauses, especially the one bringing the body within the purview of the Right to Information Act. The Sports Ministry is learnt to have been asked to drop the ‘intrusive’ clauses from the draft and come up with a modified Bill.

One of the contentious clauses that attempts to put restrictions on sports federations in terms of tenure and age of office-bearers also came in for opposition.

While the Sports Ministry was keen to tighten the reins on the free-flowing business of sports, specially cricket, the presence of several political big guns in the BCCI and other cricket associations had a neutralising effect. Those who objected to the Bill included Sharad Pawar, Praful Patel, C.P. Joshi, Kamal Nath, Farookh Abdullah and Kapil Sibal besides Rajiv Shukla.

In any case, the Sports Ministry had already toned down the draft of the proposed Bill, but that wasn’t enough to get the Cabinet’s nod. The BCCI is an autonomous body which has created a multi-million-dollar empire out of cricket making it the biggest money-spinner in the sport.

At the same time, the BCCI has frequently, in the past, cocked a snook at the government rather contemptuously, keeping their fierce independence, and frequently bent rules regarding financial transactions. But the BCCI has fiercely defended its ‘independence’ on the plea that it has never sought any financial aid from the government. Government regulations issued on the tenure of office-bearers issued on September 20, 1975, had capped the tenure of the president, secretary and treasurer of a federation at not more than two consecutive terms of four years each.

However, this regulation was kept in abeyance due to objections from various quarters as most of the sports federations were headed by top politicians, bureaucrats or influential businessmen, on the ground that such action on the part of the Government would be tantamount to interference with their autonomy, which is bestowed upon them by the Olympic Charter of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

It was also argued that sports being a state subject, the Centre could not interfere in the functioning of the IOA and the NSFs.

The government’s argument was that since the federations accept financial grants from the Ministry, it was within its rights to set the NSFs’ in order and be made accountable for the money they receive.