BCCI’s Stance on New Sports Governance Act Sparks Internal Confusion and Legal Wrangling
NEW DELHI – A brewing conflict over administrative timelines has triggered widespread uncertainty within the BCCI and its state units. At the heart of the issue is a legal tug-of-war concerning the Odisha Cricket Association (OCA) elections, which has cast doubt on whether the newly enacted National Sports Governance Act, 2025, supersedes the board’s own internal constitution.
The Legal Disconnect
The controversy stems from an affidavit submitted to the Odisha High Court by the BCCI, signed by secretary Devajit Saikia. In the filing, the board explicitly argues that cricket has not been formally notified as a “designated sport” under the 2025 Act. Consequently, the BCCI contends that the OCA must continue to hold elections in accordance with the board’s existing constitution—which was amended following the Supreme Court-mandated Lodha Committee reforms of 2019.
This stance directly contradicts the expectations of several state associations. Following a Ministry of Sports advisory issued last December, many units believed they were permitted to defer their elections until December 2026. The BCCI’s recent legal maneuver has caught these units off guard, creating an administrative limbo.
Points of Friction
The primary friction point involves the “cooling-off period” for office-bearers. The 2025 Act notably omits the mandatory cooling-off period required by the Lodha reforms and offers more lenient regulations regarding conflicts of interest.
While state associations seeking stability were looking to leverage the government’s timeline, the BCCI’s affidavit insists on the urgency of local elections to prevent any individual from serving more than two consecutive terms.
“The state bodies need to know if they have to follow the Sports Governance Act or the BCCI constitution,” a senior board official told reporters. “The board’s reluctance to align with government directives could cause significant disruption just as new office-bearers are settling into their roles.”
A Landscape of Ambiguity
The tension is further complicated by recent parliamentary and regulatory discourse. In August 2025, Vijayawada MP and Andhra Cricket Association president Kesineni Sivanath praised the new bill, suggesting that the BCCI’s existing principles already mirror the government’s goals. Furthermore, the Central Information Commission recently ruled that the BCCI remains exempt from the RTI Act, characterizing the Lodha Committee’s earlier recommendations as merely “advisory in nature.”
This creates a precarious situation for key board figures. For instance, BCCI vice-president Rajiv Shukla is slated to complete six years in office next year, while secretary Saikia is currently serving his second term. If the BCCI were to eventually fall under the purview of the National Sports Board (NSB), the stringent cooling-off requirements under the current BCCI constitution would technically vanish, potentially allowing for longer tenures.
Looking Ahead
The judiciary is now tasked with clarifying this hierarchy of authority. With the next hearing scheduled for September 1, the sports fraternity is watching closely to see whether the court will prioritize the BCCI’s internal constitutional mandate or the broader framework of the National Sports Governance Act.
Until a clear directive is issued, state units remain caught in a bureaucratic deadlock, uncertain whether to adhere to the government’s grace period or comply with the board’s rigid, reform-era electoral schedule.
