New Delhi, Oct. 6: The Supreme Court today gave India's cricket board just one more day to "unconditionally" accept all the reforms suggested by the Justice R.M. Lodha committee, threatening to "pass orders" tomorrow if it didn't.

The ultimatum came after the Board of Control for Cricket in India refused to give the undertaking within the 24-hour deadline, claiming the state associations were against adopting the reforms.

The court hinted its orders might include the board's "supersession" with a court-appointed administrator and the stoppage of the flow of board funds to the state cricket associations. It indicated it might force the state bodies to return the Rs 400 crore the board recently distributed among them, or have the money placed in special fixed deposit accounts till the dispute was resolved.

The board and the state bodies all need to amend their memoranda of associations (MoAs) to introduce the reforms, which include a ban on ministers and civil servants holding any posts, a 70-year age cap, a one-person-one-post dictum and a cooling-off period between terms. Also included are a one-state-one-vote policy and a provision to prune the number of national selectors from five to three.

Board counsel Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar claimed the board was willing to implement the reforms but the state associations were not, and the board lacked the power to force them.

But the bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud said the board couldn't in the same breath claim its right to provide funds to the state associations and accuse them of defying its directives to adopt the reforms.

"How can you (state associations) say, 'Give me money but please don't ask me to reform?' If the (state) association is reluctant to reform, why are you giving funds? Are you under any obligation to give crores of rupees?" the bench said.

Justice Thakur asked why the board had distributed Rs 400 crore among 13 state associations despite the Lodha committee's directive not to release funds until the reforms had been initiated.

Sibal argued the disbursal was in keeping with a decision taken by the board's annual general body meeting last November before the Lodha committee had given its recommendations.

But despite persistent questioning from the bench, neither Sibal nor Datar could produce the documents relating to the AGM decision. They both sought time.

Sibal argued the funds had to be released to meet pressing needs like the payment of staff salaries and the conduct of local league matches and under-15 and under-19 tournaments. He said the state associations needed to be "persuaded" to fall in line.

"What's the urgency? Forget domestic matches. What is the persuasion, why should they be persuaded?" Justice Thakur asked. "Fairness and objectivity is important or (are) matches more important?"

He added: "You (the board) as a body must clarify your stand if you want to do it (implement the recommendations) or not. If you are in the forefront to defy, the others (state associations) will follow suit."

Sibal, apparently trying to buy more time, said: "We will go back to the state associations and tell them."

Justice Thakur was unwilling to take the bait.

"There are certain reforms you have to follow. If they (state associations) say, 'We don't want to change', then they must forgo (funds). It is public money. It is nobody's (not the board's or its affiliates') money," he said.

"First you (the board) have to adopt your own memorandum of association. If you are giving an unconditional undertaking that you are abiding by all conditions by tomorrow... otherwise we are passing orders."

Justice Thakur added: "We can't be wasting our time for reforming the BCCI. People are waiting for years... to get justice but here people (the board) are not willing to reform."

Datar kept pleading he would respond by October 17, when the court reopens after the Dussehra vacation, but Sibal bluntly said: "I can't give such an undertaking by tomorrow."

Justice Thakur then said the court would pronounce its verdict tomorrow.

Earlier, the bench had sought suggestions from amicus curiae (friend of the court) and senior counsel Gopal Subramanium on how the board should be reined in if it failed to implement the recommendations.

"Please tell us about supersession. Who should be there? Is there any person you can suggest?" the bench asked. "They have forced a situation where they are asking for a supersession of the board."

Subramanium said: "Persons of unimpeachable integrity must be made an administrator."

Vikas Mehta, counsel for Cricket Association of Bihar secretary Aditya Verma, suggested the Lodha committee itself take over the board's management.

It was the Bihar association's application before Bombay High Court challenging various irregularities in the board that eventually brought the board to its current crisis.

Subramanium told the court that except for accepting the clause on anti-racism measures, the board had rejected all the other recommendations of the Lodha panel.

He ridiculed the board for consistently defying the court while peppering its affidavits and applications with expressions such as "highest respects, deepest regards and all such permutations" for the court.

"A former judge of this court goes to all TV channels and is making statements," Subramanium added. He did not name Justice Markandey Katju, a former apex court judge who has as the board's legal adviser encouraged it not to implement the reforms.