BCCI Stand On Sports Governance Act Creates Confusion In State Cricket Bodies

The BCCI has told the Odisha High Court that cricket is not yet covered under the 2025 Sports Governance Act, leaving state associations uncertain about elections and cooling off rules.

BCCI says cricket has not been notified under the Sports Governance Act.Odisha Cricket Association elections have become the centre of a wider debate over cricket administration.State cricket associations are now seeking clarity on which rules they must follow.

A fresh development in the Odisha Cricket Association election case has raised questions among several state units of the Board of Control for Cricket in India about the application of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.

The issue came into focus after the BCCI submitted an affidavit before the Odisha High Court. The affidavit, authorised by BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia, maintained that the Odisha Cricket Association should conduct its elections under the existing BCCI constitution.

That constitution was amended in 2019 following the recommendations of the Lodha Committee. The BCCI has argued that the new Sports Governance Act does not currently apply to cricket because the sport has not been formally notified as a designated sport under the legislation.

The position has surprised some state associations because they had understood that the government’s directions allowed sports bodies to postpone elections until December 2026.

The dispute is particularly important because of the different approaches to the cooling off period for office bearers. The BCCI constitution contains provisions relating to consecutive terms and cooling off, while the 2025 Act does not prescribe a similar cooling off period and also provides greater flexibility in certain conflict of interest matters.

The Odisha Cricket Association’s existing rules also restrict an office bearer from continuing for more than two consecutive terms. The BCCI has therefore argued that elections should not be unnecessarily delayed.

In its submission to the court, the board said cricket had not been notified as a designated sport for the National Sports Governance Act to become applicable. It also stressed that timely elections were necessary in Odisha to ensure that no individual remained in office beyond the permitted consecutive terms.

The contrasting positions of the OCA office bearers and the BCCI have added another layer to the matter. While the Odisha officials have maintained that they are acting in accordance with government directions, the BCCI has taken the view that its existing constitutional framework should continue to guide the election process.

The Odisha High Court is expected to hear the matter again on September 1, when the competing positions could receive further consideration.

The uncertainty has implications beyond Odisha. Several state associations are now trying to understand whether they should follow the National Sports Governance Act or continue to rely on the BCCI constitution while planning their own elections.

A senior cricket administrator pointed out that the situation could become difficult if the government allows sports bodies to defer elections until December 2026, while the BCCI simultaneously insists that its constitutional rules require elections to be held earlier.

The issue also touches on the broader question of how cricket administration will operate under the new sports legislation. State associations want a clear understanding of whether the government framework or the BCCI’s own constitution will take precedence in matters such as terms of office, elections and cooling off requirements.

The BCCI itself conducted its elections in September last year, before the sports ministry issued its advisory regarding the election timeline. This has added to the discussion about whether the board and its state units should now follow the same interpretation of the legislation.

BCCI vice president Rajiv Shukla is expected to complete six years in office next year. Saikia, meanwhile, is serving his second term as a BCCI office bearer and is expected to complete six years in 2028 before entering the cooling off period prescribed under the board’s constitution.

There is also an interesting political connection to the debate. During a parliamentary discussion on the Sports Governance Bill in August 2025, Vijayawada MP and Andhra Cricket Association president Kesineni Sivanath had welcomed the proposed legislation and said that the BCCI already followed its basic principles.

The BCCI’s position on the new law also comes against the backdrop of earlier discussions over its legal status. The Central Information Commission in May exempted the BCCI from the Right to Information Act, while observing that the Lodha Committee recommendations were advisory in nature.

Another important question is what could happen if cricket is eventually brought under the National Sports Board. In that situation, the cooling off requirement currently applicable under the BCCI constitution may not necessarily continue in its present form.

For state associations, the immediate concern is practical rather than theoretical. Elections determine who controls the administration of state cricket, and uncertainty over the applicable rules could affect the timing of those polls as well as the eligibility of existing office bearers.

The Odisha case could therefore become an important test of how the new sports legislation interacts with the BCCI’s existing constitutional structure. Until there is greater clarity from the government or the courts, state associations are likely to remain cautious about making decisions that could later be challenged.

The next hearing in the Odisha High Court on September 1 is expected to provide a clearer indication of how the court views the BCCI’s position and whether the election process in Odisha should proceed under the existing BCCI framework.