BCCI Vs Sports Governance Act Explained: Why OCA Elections Have Sparked A Governance Confusion

The Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) position on the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, has triggered uncertainty among state cricket associations over the rules governing their elections.

The issue has emerged from a case concerning the Odisha Cricket Association (OCA) in the Odisha High Court, where the BCCI has maintained that the state body must conduct its elections under the board’s existing constitution. According to The Times of India, the affidavit submitted by the BCCI’s legal team was authorised by secretary Devajit Saikia.

The BCCI constitution was amended in 2019 following the recommendations of the Lodha Committee and contains provisions governing the tenure of office-bearers, including a cooling-off period.

At the heart of the BCCI’s argument is its contention that the newly enacted sports law does not yet cover cricket because 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 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, according to TOI.

Cooling-Off Period Becomes Key Point Of Dispute

The position has reportedly caught several state associations in a difficult situation. A sports ministry notice issued in December had led them to believe that fresh elections could be postponed until December 2026.

The dispute is particularly significant because the two governance frameworks take different approaches to the tenure of administrators. The BCCI constitution imposes restrictions on consecutive terms and provides for a cooling-off period, whereas the National Sports Governance Act does not lay down a similar cooling-off requirement.

The new legislation also provides greater flexibility in certain conflict-of-interest provisions.

OCA’s incumbent office-bearers have maintained that they are acting in accordance with the government’s directions. The BCCI, however, has argued that the association should continue to follow its existing constitutional provisions.

The board has specifically stressed that elections should be conducted on time to ensure that no office-bearer remains in position beyond the permitted consecutive terms.

“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 read, as quoted by TOI.

The Odisha High Court is expected to take up the matter again on September 1.

The BCCI’s stance is also noteworthy in light of comments made during the parliamentary debate on the sports legislation in August 2025. Vijayawada MP and Andhra Cricket Association president Kesineni Sivanath had supported the bill and said the BCCI already followed its basic principles.

The question of the BCCI’s regulatory status has also previously come up in the context of the Right to Information Act. The government has kept the board outside the RTI framework on the grounds that it does not rely on public funds.

In May, the Central Information Commission, while dealing with the matter, said the Lodha Committee recommendations were “advisory in nature”.

The latest development has now left state associations uncertain about whether the sports ministry’s direction allowing elections to be deferred until December 2026 applies to them, or whether they remain bound by the BCCI constitution.

“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 conducted its own elections in September last year, before the sports ministry issued its December advisory.

The matter could also have implications for senior BCCI administrators. Vice-president Rajiv Shukla is due to complete six years in office next year, while Saikia is currently serving his second term as secretary and is set to complete six years as an office-bearer in 2028. Under the existing BCCI constitution, he would then enter the cooling-off period.

However, if cricket is eventually brought under the National Sports Board (NSB), the cooling-off requirement would no longer apply to BCCI office-bearers under the new governance framework.

The OCA case could therefore have ramifications beyond Odisha, with state associations now awaiting greater clarity on the relationship between the National Sports Governance Act and the BCCI’s existing constitution.