Calcutta: The Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha committee would have been "compassionate" had the Board of Control for Cricket in India, top guns Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke in particular, not been "confrontational" till their removal on January 2.

Both Anurag (a BJP Member of Parliament) and Shirke were shown the door by the Supreme Court. It left the Board without leadership, leading to CEO Rahul Johri running the show.

"You must remember that judges are compassionate when they need to be and, equally, hard when the situation so demands...

"I have no doubt in my mind that Justices Lodha, Ashok Bhan and Raju Raveendran would have taken a slightly different line on some of their recommendations had the Board and its leadership acted prudently...

"Anurag was the secretary when the recommendations were tabled last January and, from May, he was the Board president. Shirke succeeded Anurag as the secretary...

"In the Board, the agenda is always set by the president and the secretary. They show the way, provide leadership...

"Both Anurag and Shirke had adequate time before the Supreme Court order of July 18 to start acting on the recommendations and, at the same time, requesting the Justice Lodha committee to review one or two of them...

"I'm convinced the three judges would have been compassionate, but Anurag and Shirke decided to be confrontational," a well-placed source of The Telegraph, familiar with the Justice Lodha committee, said on Saturday evening.

Of course, Anurag and Shirke would have a vastly different point of view, arguing that they only fought for the autonomy of an institution which recently completed 88 years of its existence.

According to the well-placed source, the "utter disregard" for the timelines set by the Justice Lodha committee just didn't help the Board. Getting Justice Markandey Katju as an advisor only made it worse.

In fact, even the Supreme Court would have taken a very dim view both of ignoring the timelines and getting Justice Katju on board.

"The last set of FAQs from the Justice Lodha committee have probably caused a lot of heartburn. If somebody has taken them to heart, then that person is free to move the Supreme Court...

"From what I know, the FAQs are based on the three judges' interpretation of the January 2 order and amicus curiae Gopal Subramaniam's interpretation is unlikely to be any different at all...

"If those who've been disqualified from becoming office-bearers were to enter the Board as their state association's nominee, then one would be back to square one...

"Narayanswami Srinivasan would represent Tamil Nadu, Anurag Himachal and Shirke would take Maharashtra's seat...

"What would such a situation lead to? The Justice Lodha committee surely wouldn't want anything undesirable to happen," the well-placed source added.

The well-placed source revealed that a move was afoot in some state associations for the disqualified office-bearers to almost overnight sit on an "advisory committee," which would act as the proverbial Big Brother.

In other words, the advisory committee and not the office-bearers would run the show.

By the way, contrary to the general belief, there's no bar (certainly not at this stage) on anybody who is over 70 from becoming the representative of an affiliated unit at the level of the state associations.

However, the over-70-year-old cannot obviously either become an office-bearer or serve on the working/managing committee.

A related matter now...

Apparently, there has been no dialogue between the Justice Lodha committee and the two members (Subramaniam, Anil Divan) empowered by the Supreme Court to appoint the panel of administrators.

The administrators are to oversee the transition within the Board.

Subramaniam and Divan would be placing their recommendations before the Supreme Court on January 19.

It's certainly not mandatory that a former India cricketer has to be one of the administrators.

Once the Supreme Court has approved the panel of administrators, the Justice Lodha committee would issue a fresh timeline for the recasting of the Board.

The time for any more resistance is over.

As the well-placed source put it: "The Board threw its last dice a long time ago... Now, it must worry about not inviting more sanctions from the Supreme Court."