Did you know Sachin Tendulkar played for BCCI and not India? Did you know that Jagmohan Dalmiya still continues to be the President of BCCI? Did you know Ranbir Singh Mahindra is only elected as President but not to take charge? Should Dalmiya be patron-in-chief of BCCI?
All these "Tell Me Why" series-type questions raised during high-voltage court room matches will be decided by the Supreme Court and not the third umpire!
But the verdict in the issues raised - be it by Prasar Bharati on its row with Ten Sports over telecast of the India-Pakistan Friendship Series, or by Zee TV accusing BCCI of acting whimsically in deciding the telecast contract or by BCCI itself relating to controversies on election of its President - could well go a long way in the running of the Cricket Board, the richest Indian sports body.
Ten Sports was first to approach the Supreme Court. It challenged an Andhra Pradesh High Court order asking it in public interest to share with Doordarshan its live telecast feed of India-Pakistan matches, notwithstanding the Dubai-based channel's exclusive rights over it.
The friendship matches are long over with India managing to keep an upper hand over its arch rivals but the simmering dicontent over the share of the booty from the advertisement revenue between DD and Ten Sports continues. Thanks to the Supreme Court, we watched the matches on national channel which was directed to deposit Rs 50 crore in the court.
The stories behind the functioning of BCCI came to the fore when Zee TV questioned the manner in which its bid, the highest among the bidders, for the right to telecast all matches played in India was cancelled.
The private TV channel raised a vital question - should BCCI not be regarded as an instrument of the state as it selected the Indian team?
No, was the firm answer from BCCI. It said the Board has nothing to do with the Government and that it selected the BCCI team and not the Indian team. The answer raised a quite a few eyebrows, including those of the Supreme Court.
Unfazed, the Board went ahead and said it does not even fly the tricolour when there is a match between India and a foreign country. Moreover, allowing Government interference in the functioning of the Board would herald the entry of politics into cricket.
"Is there more room for it in cricket?" was the response of the Court.
The mother of all on-Court cricket battles was fought in the Supreme Court when the Board challenged a Madras High Court order appointing a retired Supreme Court Judge S Mohan to supervise the controversy-ridden Board elections.
Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar was pipped at the post when outgoing President Dalmiya exercised his casting vote in favour of his nominee Ranbir Singh Mahindra.
Not to forget, Dalmiya had already cast his vote in favour of Mahindra resulting in a tie leading to the casting vote. BCCI showed the rule books and said Dalmiya has acted as per rules.
The Supreme Court lifted the stay on the functioning of the newly-elected Board headed by Mahindra but in a sudden move restrained Dalmiya from becoming the patron-in-chief of BCCI.
The Board accepted it then. But when it came to the final round of arguments on the contentious issue, the Board said that Dalmiya still continued to discharge the functions of the President of the Board as the AGM at Kolkata, where elections were held, had not been concluded.
Reason - a Chennai Court had restrained the Board AGM from deliberating on two issues on the agenda - one relating to confirming the election of Dalmiya as patron-in-chief and the other nominating Dalmiya as the Board representative to the International Cricket Council.
A confused Court went on to ask the BCCI counsel as to for whom he appeared - the old Board or the new Board? The counsel in his reply said he appeared for the Board continuing to function under President Dalmiya.
And why should he not be the patron-in-chief? Dalmiya's counsel showered praise on the man with a "Midas touch" and reeled off statistics to show how he has turned the BCCI and and ICC from the brink of penury to "highly profitable" organisations.
He even gave a veiled warning. Dalmiya was the lone person equipped with the ability to counter the Rs 200 crore damage suit filed by GCC for alleged violation of players' contract by Indian cricketers during the last World Cup. The present petitions against Dalmiya could have been engineered by the "foreign powers" to see that Indian cricket suffered!
