New Delhi – A recent affidavit submitted by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has deepened uncertainty among the body’s state affiliates about how to conduct elections under the National Sports Governance Act of 2025. The filing, authorised by BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia, argues that cricket has not been listed as a “designated sport” under the Act, thereby questioning the applicability of the law to the sport’s governing structures.
Legal Position and Constitutional Conflict
The affidavit asserts that, despite the Act’s enactment, cricket remains outside its jurisdiction because the sport has not been formally notified as a designated sport. Consequently, the BCCI maintains that the Odisha Cricket Association (OCA) must hold its elections according to the BCCI’s own constitution, which was amended in 2019 following the Lodha Committee’s recommendations. Those recommendations introduced limits on consecutive terms for office‑bearers and mandated a cooling‑off period, although the BCCI’s internal rules differ from the provisions—or lack thereof—found in the national legislation.
State cricket associations had been operating under the impression that the sports ministry’s notice issued in December of the previous year allowed them to defer elections until December 2026. That notice, however, does not address a cooling‑off period, and the Act itself omits any such requirement, creating a regulatory vacuum that the BCCI’s filing seeks to exploit.
Points of Friction Between OCA and BCCI
Incumbent officials of the OCA contend that they are following directives issued by the government, while the BCCI’s stance is diametrically opposed. The affidavit emphasizes that the OCA’s constitution contains a clause prohibiting any individual from serving more than two consecutive terms. It argues that prompt elections are essential to prevent any office‑bearer from breaching that limit and to honour the spirit of a Supreme Court judgment that underscored the need for regular turnover.
The next hearing on the matter is slated for September 1, where the court will likely examine whether the national act or the BCCI’s internal constitution should dictate the election timetable for the OCA.
Political and Administrative Context
During a parliamentary debate in August 2025, Vijayawada MP and Andhra Cricket Association president Kesineni Sivanath welcomed the Sports Governance Bill, noting that the BCCI already adheres to its core principles. The government has also exempted the BCCI from the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the basis that the board does not rely on public funds. In May, the Central Information Commission reinforced this exemption and described the Lodha Committee’s recommendations as merely advisory.
These developments have left the BCCI in a paradoxical position: while the board enjoys a degree of regulatory relief, it now faces a legal argument that could strip it of the ability to apply its own constitutional safeguards to state‑level bodies like the OCA.
Senior officials, speaking to the Times of India, warned that if the government’s December 2026 deferral is interpreted as binding, every state association might postpone elections for a range of posts. The BCCI, which traditionally champions continuity in administration, fears that such a pause could undermine the experience being built by newly elected officials.
Moreover, the board’s reluctance to accept the government’s timeline could create a governance gap just as fresh office‑bearers are beginning to take shape. The ambiguity also extends to the question of whether state bodies must align with the Sports Governance Act or continue to operate under the BCCI’s constitution.
Adding to the complexity, the BCCI held its own elections in September of the previous year, prior to the sports ministry’s advisory. Vice‑president Rajiv Shukla is set to complete a six‑year term next year, while secretary Saikia, now in his second term, will finish six years in 2028 before entering the cooling‑off period prescribed by the BCCI constitution. Should the BCCI eventually fall under the National Sports Board’s jurisdiction, the mandatory cooling‑off period outlined in the Act would not be enforceable for its office‑bearers.
As the September hearing approaches, state cricket associations remain in a holding pattern, awaiting clarification on whether they must obey the national act, the BCCI’s internal rules, or a hybrid of both. The outcome could set a precedent for how cricket governance aligns—or diverges—from broader Indian sports legislation.
Be First to Comment