New Delhi: A recent development in a matter concerning the Odisha Cricket Association’s (OCA) elections in the Odisha High Court has created confusion among the Indian cricket board’s (BCCI) state units over the National Sports Governance Act, passed in 2025.In an affidavit filed by the BCCI’s legal team and authorised by board secretary Devajit Saikia, it has been claimed that the OCA must conduct its elections as per the existing BCCI constitution, which was amended following the Lodha Committee recommendations in 2019.The BCCI has asserted that cricket is not a ‘designated sport’ even though the Act has been enacted, suggesting its reluctance to come under the ambit of the National Sports Board (NSB).Several state associations were under the impression that fresh elections would remain in abeyance until December 2026, as per the sports ministry’s notice issued last December. The biggest point of friction is the cooling-off period for office-bearers. The Act does not specify any cooling-off period and also relaxes certain areas related to conflict of interest.The incumbent OCA office-bearers have claimed that they are following the government’s directions, while the BCCI has taken an opposite stance.“It is submitted that even though the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 has been enacted, the sport of cricket has not been notified as a ‘designated sport’ for the said National Sports Governance Act, 2025 to apply,” the BCCI’s affidavit stated.“That Odisha Cricket Association has similar provisions of no office-bearer continuing for more than two terms consecutively, it is imperative that timely elections should be held in order to avoid continuation of any person for more than two terms consecutively and to uphold the spirit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” the affidavit, a copy of which is with TOI, read.The next hearing is scheduled for September 1.Interestingly, during a parliamentary discussion in August 2025, Vijayawada MP and Andhra Cricket Association president Kesineni Sivanath welcomed the bill and stated that the BCCI already adheres to its core principles.It was mentioned that the government had only exempted the BCCI from coming under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act since it did not depend on public funds. In May, the Central Information Commission, while exempting the BCCI from the RTI Act, stated that the Lodha Committee’s recommendations were only ‘advisory in nature’.The BCCI’s recent stance has created an ambiguous situation within the board.“If the government has notified that sports bodies can defer elections till December 2026, every state unit would believe it can wait until then before holding elections for select posts. The power forces in BCCI have always advocated the importance of continuity in administration. The board’s reluctance to adhere to government directives can disrupt it just when the new office-bearers were gaining experience.“It has also created confusion over the governance of the sport. The state bodies need to know if they have to follow the Sports Governance Act or the BCCI constitution,” a senior official told TOI.The BCCI held its elections last September, before the sports ministry issued its advisory. BCCI vice-president Rajiv Shukla will complete six years in office next year, while secretary Saikia is into his second term as an office-bearer and will complete six years in 2028 before entering the cooling-off period under the BCCI constitution.If the BCCI eventually comes under the ambit of the NSB, the mandatory cooling-off period would not apply to its office-bearers.
