1. Home
  2. Sports
  3. Cricket
  4. Justice Katju terms Lodha reforms ‘illegal’

Justice Katju terms Lodha reforms ‘illegal’ and ‘unconstitutional’

Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju on Sunday made a stringent attack on the apex body’s verdict on BCCI reforms, terming them as “unconstitutional and illegal”. Katju, who has been appointed by the BCCI
India TV Sports Desk New Delhi August 07, 2016 18:18 IST
India TV Sports Desk

Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju on Sunday made a stringent attack on the apex body’s verdict on BCCI reforms, terming them as “unconstitutional and illegal”. 

Katju, who has been appointed by the BCCI to advice on SC verdict on implementation of Justice Lodha committee recommendations, also advised the Board to file a review petition before a larger bench of the apex court and not to meet the Committee as scheduled on August 9 terming the panel as "null and void".

"What the Supreme Court has done is unconstitutional and illegal. There has been violation of principles of the Constitution. Under our Constitution, we have legislature, executive and judiciary. There is broad separation of functions. It's the legislature's prerogative to make laws. If judiciary starts making laws, one is setting a dangerous precedent," Katju said at a media conference.

"I have advised them (BCCI) to file a review petition before a larger bench. In this case, the Supreme Court outsourced a committee (referring to Lodha Committee) to decide on BCCI's punishment," he said.

BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke however said that the Board will study the interim report prepared by Justice Katju and then take a call.

"The Supreme Court had appointed the Lodha Committee to find the defects in working of BCCI. That was okay. When the Lodha Committee Report was submitted to the Supreme Court, it should have been forwarded to Parliament and State Legislatures. It then should have been left to legislature to accept or not to accept the recommendations. Judiciary is not supposed to legislate," Katju said, elaborating his viewpoint.

He gave examples of cases where a larger bench with four or five judges has handled serious issues.

(With PTI inputs)