IPL Meeting: Governing Council allows 5 retentions and 1 RTM but with big rider
Bengaluru, Sep 28: The 10 IPL franchises will be allowed to retain a maximum of six players from their previous squads, which will include one Right To Match (RTM) card at the auction which will cost Rs 75 crore out of an enhanced team purse of Rs 120 crore, the Indian Premier League governing council decided on Saturday. A team was allowed up to four retentions in the last mega auction held in 2022.
On the day, BCCI secretary Jay Shah also announced a fixed match fee of Rs 7.50 lakh for all players selected to play the league games with an additional 1.05 crore income over and above their salaries.
A fixed salary purse of Rs 12.60 crore in addition to the auction cum retention purse of Rs 120 crore will have to be kept by the franchises for next season.
"The first retention will cost Rs 18 crore followed by second retention of Rs 14 crore and third retention of Rs 11 crore. However if a franchise opts for fourth and fifth retentions, they will again have to pay Rs 18 crore and Rs 14 crore respectively. So any franchise opts for all five retentions, then will have only Rs 45 crore to buy or even use their Right To Match (RTM) card to buy another 15 players and prepare a squad. There is no cap on Indian and Overseas retentions," a senior BCCI and IPL governing council member told PTI on conditions of anonymity.
It is understood that most of the stronger franchises like Mumbai Indians, Kolkata Knight Riders and Sunrisers Hyderabad were in favour of six to eight retentions as opposed to likes of some other franchises which don't have too much star power.
"We introduced more deductions for retentions four and five to ensure level playing field. You can go ahead and retain five but then you will have less than Rs 50 crore to deal with at auction table. Also if franchises opt for only three retentions, then more star value will be added to auction," the source said.
An example can be furnished how BCCI planned to make it interesting.
Therefore if Mumbai Indians want to retain Hardik Pandya, Rohit Sharma, Suryakumar Yadav, Jasprit Bumrah and Thilak Varma, they will have Rs 75 crore deducted from its purse. And then with Rs 45 crore at auctions, what happens if Ishan Kishan's price skyrockets to Rs 15 crore and they are forced to use a Right To Match card. Then it effectively boils down to Rs 30 crore to select 14 more players.
One needs to note that retention price is only a deduction from the team purse for the auction but it may or may not be the actual salary of the player which is a player-franchise separate contract.
Meanwhile Shah took to twitter to announce the per match fee which effectively means that an uncapped Indian player, who can play three games of IPL stands to earn Rs 22.5 lakh apart from a minimum base price of Rs 20 lakh. So he can earn 42.5 lakh in a season by playing just three games of three hours whereas if he plays 10 Ranji Trophy games in a season, he stands to earn Rs 24 lakh only.
"In a historic move to celebrate consistency and champion outstanding performances in the IPL, we are thrilled to introduce a match fee of INR 7.5 lakhs per game for our cricketers! A cricketer playing all league matches in a season will get Rs. 1.05 crores in addition to his contracted amount," Shah tweeted.
"Each franchise will allocate INR 12.60 crores as match fees for the season! This is a new era for the IPL and our players," he added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
