July 18, 2016, was the much-awaited judgement day. It came close to three years after the IPL spot-fixing case had reached the Supreme Court. The country’s highest seat of justice had passed its final order that agreed to the wholescale changes that the Justice R M Lodha committee had recommended to the BCCI constitution. It had the necessary trappings for the men in black robes to give it the halo of “landmark ruling”.

The order was the outcome of an extensive drafting process and long-drawn, epic courtroom drama. Several chief justices, part of changing benches, had heard arguments from “Rs 25-lakh-per-hearing” rockstar lawyers. The solicitor general too appeared in the case where the BCCI reportedly spent Rs 350 crore on legal fees.

The best legal minds in the country had worked towards what seemed like a final closure. There was a sense of relief among the cricket reporters covering court proceedings that day. More used to working in the din of sprawling cricket stadiums, the crammed corner of the court’s visiting gallery was too restrictive. The surroundings were way too formal.

There were other peeves of the “outsiders” who had made a habit of trooping into the SC. Why, like in the post-match press conferences, can’t they place their dictaphone on the judge’s table? The legal beat regulars would roll their eyes. They would train the newbies to crane their necks, place the ear strategically and be diligent about taking notes. This came with a warning about the dire consequences of misquoting their Lordships.

But the hope that cricket battles would henceforth be confined in stadiums proved to be wishful thinking. July 18, 2016 didn’t live up to its promise, in many ways.

The BCCI would cherry-pick clauses from the new SC-approved constitution and return to court to plead to rewrite the rewrite. It’s been six years, the SC order hasn’t been fully implemented. The sports reporters’ court visits haven’t stopped; they have become more regular.

To the horror of those who signed up to make the sporting arenas their place of work, now even the national bodies for Olympic, football, hockey and few others are in court. The classic sports body reforms playbook is out again. Like in cricket, the SC-handpicked Committee of Administrators (CoA) are in-charge of all major sports in the country.

Unsurprisingly, the veteran administrators have gone out kicking and shouting, some trying their best to call the shots through proxies. The churning has been ugly, it has thrown up ugly consequences — threats of international bans and administrative uncertainty. Each of these national federations isn’t a shining example in sporting governance. They have been the fiefdoms of a handful. But what about the track record of the courts in handling these situations? Have their intentions matched the implementation?

In a court of law, a precedent is a vital tool used to carve out justice. It’s a doctrine, a binding principle of jurisprudence that ensures consistency and fairness. Post 2016, the changes that cricket went through can give clues on the fate that awaits football and others. But the findings aren’t too encouraging for those wanting to witness a ‘new era’ in football. Despite being under judicial scrutiny for the longest time, the BCCI continues to be governed like it was. The initial SC order of 2016 hasn’t been implemented either in letter or spirit.

Cricket’s constitutional ambiguity continues since the BCCI’s plea, pointing to practical difficulties in implementing the Lodha reforms, is still pending. They have objected to the “cooling off” clause and that has resulted in the president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah staying on despite their tenure getting over. The power coterie has further shrunk and the promised player empowerment has remained in the legal documents. The cricket case breeds cynicism and questions the purpose of the time-consuming, expensive exercise.

The football revamp to some extent follows the cricket template. The courts and the committees they appoint have unflinching faith in the credibility of former players. They are firm believers that bringing former players into the system would ensure good governance.

The CoA in-charge of football is of the view that the 50 per cent of the All-India Football Federation (AIFF) executive committee should comprise “eminent players” as co-opted members. It’s ironic that around the time India was reserving the players’ seats in the executive, the celebrated French footballer Michel Platini was being handed a jail sentence for a financial fraud he committed as FIFA vice president.

When the CoA left the BCCI, Ganguly, the charismatic former Indian captain, became the president. The optics were outstanding, the courts had snatched the powers from the fuddy duddy administrators and put in charge a proven leader of cricketers on field. Ganguly’s stint at Cricket Centre has been anything but sparkling. As BCCI president he has continued his commercial associations that have repeatedly raised conflict of interest questions. His very public difference with India’s No.1 cricketer Virat Kohli too didn’t give the impression that the house was in order and it is only the players who understand players. It’s an open secret in cricket circles that it is secretary Shah who holds the real power in the BCCI.

Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox

Despite their aura as national stars and the push from the courts, the players haven’t been able to assert themselves. They remain vulnerable to temptations and lack conviction in taking on the old guard. In a nutshell, they remain human. Perhaps, football will be a different story, the courts might have learnt their lesson.

Till the end game, sports reporters will continue to drag their feet to the courts, crane their necks and take notes diligently. From the corner of the courts, they will watch if the courts just crack the whip or this time they are even able to bell cats.

sandeep.dwivedi@expressindia.com