A legal filing by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (
In an affidavit submitted to the Odisha High Court and authorised by BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia, the board argued that the OCA must proceed with its elections in accordance with the BCCI constitution, which was amended following the 2019 Lodha Committee recommendations. The BCCI maintains that because cricket has not been officially classified as a designated sport under the new Act, the board is not currently required to operate under the jurisdiction of the National Sports Board.
Conflicting Directives and Governance Uncertainty
The BCCI's position has created a significant divide, as many state associations previously operated under the assumption that they could defer elections until December 2026, consistent with a government advisory issued last December. The primary point of contention involves the mandatory cooling-off period for office-bearers. While the BCCI constitution enforces specific term limits and cooling-off requirements, the new National Sports Governance Act does not include these stipulations and offers more lenient regulations regarding conflicts of interest.
The affidavit explicitly states that the Act does not apply to cricket, noting that the OCA must hold timely elections to prevent any individual from serving more than two consecutive terms. This stance is intended to align with the spirit of previous Supreme Court rulings. However, the directive has left state officials questioning which set of rules takes precedence. A senior official noted that the ambiguity forces state bodies to choose between following the government’s legislative framework or the BCCI’s internal constitutional mandates.
Political and Administrative Implications
The situation is further complicated by varying interpretations of the board's relationship with government oversight. During parliamentary discussions in August 2025, Andhra Cricket Association president and MP Kesineni Sivanath suggested that the BCCI already aligns with the core principles of the new legislation. This follows a May decision by the Central Information Commission, which exempted the BCCI from the Right to Information Act on the basis that the board does not rely on public funding, while also describing the Lodha Committee recommendations as advisory.
The current confusion is particularly sensitive given the tenure of senior BCCI officials. Vice-president Rajiv Shukla is set to complete six years in office next year, while secretary Saikia is currently serving his second term, with a six-year threshold approaching in 2028. Should the BCCI eventually be brought under the ambit of the National Sports Board, the cooling-off requirements currently mandated by the board’s constitution would no longer apply. As the legal battle regarding the Odisha Cricket Association continues, with the next court hearing scheduled for September 1, the broader implications for the governance of state units remain unresolved.
