Court directs fresh elections after Electoral Officer failed to adjudicate objections against candidates exceeding nine years cumulative tenure, upholding Supreme Court’s Lodha Committee reforms.
In a landmark judgment dated March 16, 2026, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Mr. Niral R. Mehta, invalidated the election of certain Office Bearers of the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA) scheduled for the 2026-2029 term. The petitioners challenged the candidature of four respondents-contestants for the posts of President, Secretary, and Treasurer—on the ground that they had cumulatively served as Office Bearers and/or members of the Apex Council for over nine years, thereby incurring disqualification under the BCA Rules and the Supreme Court’s directives.
The Court extensively examined the tenure-based disqualification regime introduced pursuant to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, which adopted the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee. These reforms imposed a maximum nine-year cumulative tenure for Office Bearers in State Cricket Associations and the BCCI, along with a mandatory three-year cooling-off period after two consecutive terms, to prevent concentration of power and vested interests in cricket administration.
The petitioners contended that despite raising written objections before the Electoral Officer of the BCA, the Electoral Officer failed to adjudicate on their objections or communicate any decision, and proceeded to publish the final list of candidates including the disqualified respondents. This failure violated Rule 33 of the BCA Rules, which mandates the Electoral Officer, preferably a former State Election Commissioner, to scrutinize nominations and decide disputes conclusively.
Responding to these contentions, the Court held that the Electoral Officer’s failure to decide on objections and not providing a hearing or communication to the objectors was arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of natural justice. The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that tenure as Councillor and Office Bearer could be treated separately, emphasizing that the Apex Council, which includes Office Bearers and Councillors, is the governing body and cumulative service in any capacity must be counted towards the nine-year limit.
The judgment underscored that interpreting the Rules to exclude tenure served as Councillor from disqualification would defeat the Supreme Court’s object of preventing oligopolies and ensuring democratic governance. The Court found that the four respondents had indeed exceeded the maximum permissible tenure when their cumulative years as Office Bearers and Apex Council members were aggregated.
Consequently, the Gujarat High Court quashed the acceptance of their nominations and the election/voting held with their participation. The Court directed the Electoral Officer to conduct fresh elections in accordance with the Rules and the Supreme Court’s directions. The interim arrangement allowing the respondents to contest was extended for two weeks to enable them to approach higher forums if they so desired.
This judgment reaffirms the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s reforms in cricket administration, highlights the crucial role and statutory duty of the Electoral Officer, and reinforces the principle that tenure limits and cooling-off periods are essential safeguards against monopolization of power in sports bodies.
Bottom Line:
Election Law - Tenure-based disqualification of Office Bearers in Baroda Cricket Association - Election held with such candidates set aside - Direction issued to Electoral Officer to proceed with fresh election in accordance with law.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Rule 6 and Rule 14 of the Baroda Cricket Association Rules and Regulations
