The Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI's) response to criticism of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, regarding the autonomy of the state-level associations in conducting their affairs, has caused confusion among several cricket associations about the procedures to be followed in elections.
The controversy arose in the Odisha High Court in a petition regarding the Odisha Cricket Association (OCA). The BCCI's plea states that the elections should be conducted according to the BCCI's Constitution, and not the constitution of the OCA. As per The Times of India, the affidavit filed by the BCCI through the legal counsel was signed off by secretary Devajit Saikia.
BCCI argues new sports law does not yet apply to cricket
The BCCI constitution was amended in 2019 in accordance with the recommendations of the Lodha Committee. This includes limits on the tenure of office-bearers and a mandatory cooling-off period.
The crux of the matter is that the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 does not currently apply to cricket as the sport has not been formally notified as a “designated sport”.
“It is submitted that even though the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 has been notified, the sport of cricket has not been notified as a 'designated sport' for the said National Sports Governance Act, 2025 to apply,” the BCCI said in its affidavit, as per TOI.
Cooling-off period at center of dispute
The BCCI's stand has placed numerous state associations in a difficult position as a sports ministry circular issued in December 2025 has misled them into believing that fresh elections could be deferred till December 2026.
The issue is that the two governing bodies have contrasting regulations surrounding the tenure of their office-bearers. While the BCCI constitution bars consecutive terms and enforces a mandatory cooling-off period, the National Sports Governance Act does not have such restrictions.
The newly notified Act also provides more leeway regarding the resolution of conflicts of interest.
The OCA's current office-bearers have argued that they are operating within the government's guidelines while the BCCI has maintained that the constitution must be upheld.
The board has further argued that elections must be held within the stipulated time in order to avoid any member from holding office for more than the allowed tenure.
“Odisha Cricket Association has similar provisions of no office-bearer continuing for more than two terms consecutively; timely elections must 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 stated, as per TOI.
The Odisha High Court is set to resume hearing on September 1.
BCCI's position raises questions on governance
The BCCI's stand on the matter is especially ironic given some of the statements made by its members during the Rajya Sabha debates on the Sports Law in August 2025. Member of Parliament and Andhra Pradesh Cricket Association president Kesineni Sivanath was one of the voices in favor of the bill. He stated that the BCCI already operated under the basic principles mentioned in the draft.
The status of the BCCI and its autonomy have long been a topic of contention with questions being raised on its status as a government body. It has been argued that the BCCI does not come under the jurisdiction of the Right To Information Act as it does not receive funds from the government. The Central Information Commission, in its ruling on the matter back in May, noted the recommendations of the Lodha Committee were “advisory in nature”.
The latest tussle has created confusion among the state associations over which authority they should answer to with regard to elections. “If the government has notified that sports bodies can defer elections till December 2026, every state unit will feel that it can wait till the elections due to various reasons. On the other hand, the power center in BCCI has always pushed for the continuity of administration. The reluctance of the Board to follow the guidelines of the government can derail the process when the new office-bearers are set to get settled in their posts,” a senior official said, as per TOI.
“There has also been confusion on governance of the sport as the state bodies have to answer to either the Sports Governance Act or the BCCI constitution,” he added.
The BCCI conducted its own elections in September 2025, prior to the ministry's advisory in December.
The dispute could have a bearing on senior BCCI administrators as well. Vice-president Rajiv Shukla is set to complete six years in office next year, while Saikia is serving his second term as secretary and will complete six years as an office-bearer in 2028.
Also read: DPL 2026 Final Preview: Jonty Sidhu's Central Delhi Kings Take on South Delhi Superstarz for the Title
Under the BCCI constitution, he (Saikia) would then have to undergo a cooling-off period.
But in case cricket is brought under the jurisdiction of the NSB, the cooling-off period for office-bearers under the new framework would not apply.
The OCA case could have wider ramifications as state associations await clarification on which framework prevails. The dispute could act as a crucial test on whether the National Sports Governance Act would override the BCCI constitution.