MCC Committee recommends at least 3-match Test series, wants hosts to bear visitors' travel costs
London, Feb 10: A minimum of three-match Test series and the home team footing the bill of the visiting side in a bilateral contest are some of the recommendations made by the MCC's World Cricket Committee.
The World Cricket Committee of Marylebone Cricket Club, the custodians of laws of the game, met in Cape Town last week on the sidelines of SA20.
In a statement, the Committee rued the lack of a series decider in the drawn series between Australia and West Indies following the visitors' stunning win at the Gabba. India and South Africa too drew a fiercely contested two-match series in December.
"In support of the thrilling Test cricket currently being played and the importance of sustaining the traditional format of the game, the WCC recommends men's Test series be played across a minimum of three matches from the next ICC Future Tours Programme from 2028 (next cycle) onwards," said the Committee.
The WCC also highlighted the inequality among ICC member nations and stressed on the need for taking the game to unchartered territories.
"The game owes a debt of gratitude to India, with its insatiable thirst for cricket driving the wealth in the global game."
"However, this reliance upon India belies the fact that the game needs to identify new markets to ensure its global growth, at a time when media rights beyond the current cycle are by no means guaranteed."
"With this uncertainty identified and on the back of the momentum built through this year's ICC Men's T20 World Cup in the USA and Caribbean and the build up to the 2028 Olympics in the USA, the acceleration of the USA as a growth market for cricket would seem a natural consideration," it said.
"Absorb touring team costs in bilateral series"
Recently, West Indies Cricket CEO had claimed that the travelling expenses of its teams accounts for a chunk of the board's budget.
At the moment, the home team gets to keep all the media rights revenue generated from the series but the WCC wants the existing model to be reviewed.
"The WCC has long been aware of the game's global economics being heavily imbalanced and detrimental to touring teams who bear the cost of travel, whilst all revenue is retained by the host body based upon a historical expectation of quid pro quo' touring arrangements.
"With evidence emerging of this now creating inequalities the committee calls for this model to be reconsidered, with analysis to be conducted on the impact of home bodies absorbing these touring team costs as a way of redistributing income and adding greater context to all future bilateral cricket."
It also wants equal distribution of games over an FTP cycle.
"The committee also feels the imbalance of the current FTP unfairly impacts some nations by restricting where valuable content can be played in calendar windows.
"From the commencement of the next cycle in 2028, it would be preferable for a more equitable split of matches to provide a more balanced opportunity for nations to access key dates and opposition," the WCC added.
The chair of WCC is Sri Lanka great Kumar Sangakkara while the other members include Clare Connor, Kumar Dharmasena, Sourav Ganguly, Jhulan Goswami, Heather Knight, Justin Langer, Eoin Morgan, Ramiz Raja, Ricky Skerritt and Graeme Smith.
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.
SC bars Centre from granting retrospective environmental clearances
New Delhi, May 16 (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday said the right to live in a pollution free atmosphere was a part of the fundamental right as it struck down Centre’s office memorandum allowing ex post facto or retrospective environmental clearances to projects in violation of norms.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made scathing remarks in its judgement delivered on a plea filed by Vanashakti organisation and said, "The Union Government, as much as individual citizens, has a constitutional obligation to protect the environment.”
The court said it "must come down very heavily" on the Centre's attempt to do "something which is completely prohibited under the law".
It added, "Cleverly, the words ex post facto have not been used, but without using those words, there is a provision to effectively grant ex post facto EC. The 2021 OM has been issued in violation of the decisions of this court…."
The bench, therefore, declared the 2021 office memorandum (OM) and related circulars “arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006".
The Centre, as a result, was restrained from issuing directions for grant of ex post facto clearances in any form or manner or for regularising the acts done in contravention of the EIA notification.
“Under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to live in a pollution free environment is guaranteed. In fact, the 1986 Act has been enacted to give effect to this fundamental right… Therefore, even the Central Government has a duty to protect and improve the natural environment,” it said.
The court ruled these measures unlawfully permitted the regularisation of projects that had violated environmental laws.
“This court in several decisions has held that the right to live in a pollution free atmosphere is a part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Oka, writing for the bench, said.
Referring to a March 14, 2017 a notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the bench said it was made applicable to projects or activities that have started the work on site, expanded production beyond the limit of EC, or changed the production mix without obtaining EC.
“There is already a concluded finding of this court that the concept of ex post facto or retrospective EC is completely alien to environmental jurisprudence and the EIA notification,” it added.
The violation of the condition of obtaining prior EC must be dealt with heavy hands, it said.
“In environmental matters, the courts must take a very strict view of the violations of the laws relating to the environment. It is the duty of the Constitutional courts to do so,” it said.
The bench illustrated the drastic consequences of large-scale environmental degradation on human lives in Delhi and several other cities.
“At least for a span of two months every year, the residents of Delhi suffocate due to air pollution. The AQI level is either dangerous or very dangerous. They suffer in their health. The other leading cities are not far behind. The air and water pollution in the cities is ever increasing,” it said.
The bench said the OM was violative of fundamental rights of all persons guaranteed under Article 21 to live in a pollution free environment and it also infringes the right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Trashing the OM, the bench asked, “Can there be development at the cost of the environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development.”
The top court further opined courts should come down heavily on such attempts.
"As stated earlier, the OM deals with project proponents who were fully aware of the EIA notification and who have taken conscious risk to flout the EIA notification and go ahead with the construction/continuation/expansion of projects. They have shown scant respect to the law and their duty to protect the environment,” it noted.
Apart from the violation of Article 21, such an action was stated to be in complete violation of Article 14 (right to equality) aside from being violative of the 1986 Act and the EIA notification.
The bench, however, said the ex post facto environmental clearances granted in certain cases both under the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM, at the present stage, wouldn't be disturbed.
