BCCI's Stance on OCA Elections: Clash of Governance in Indian Cricket

New Delhi: A legal skirmish in the Odisha High Court over the Odisha Cricket Association (OCA) elections has blown open a much larger fault line in Indian sport — who really governs cricket in the age of the National Sports Governance Act?

At the centre of it stands the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which has made its position stark in a recent affidavit: the OCA must hold its elections under the existing BCCI constitution, not under the new central law.

And, crucially, the BCCI insists cricket does not even fall under that law.

BCCI draws a line

In an affidavit filed by its legal team and authorised by secretary Devajit Saikia, the BCCI has told the Odisha High Court that the OCA is bound by the board’s own constitution, amended in 2019 in line with the Lodha Committee recommendations.

The key claim is blunt.

Even though Parliament passed the National Sports Governance Act in 2025, the BCCI says cricket has not been notified as a “designated sport” under it. If there is no notification, the board argues, the Act does not apply. No National Sports Board oversight. No change in how cricket is run.

The affidavit, a copy of which is with TOI, goes a step further. It reminds the court that OCA’s own rules mirror the BCCI’s on one crucial front: no office-bearer can continue for more than two consecutive terms. On that basis, the BCCI presses for “timely elections” in Odisha to prevent anyone from crossing that two-term limit and to “uphold the spirit” of the Supreme Court judgment that birthed the Lodha reforms.

The next hearing in the case is listed for September 1. The legal battle is OCA’s. The implications are everyone’s.

State units caught in the crossfire

Across India, state associations had read the situation very differently.

After the sports ministry issued a notice last December, many units believed they could keep fresh elections on hold until December 2026. The advisory was seen as a blanket permission to defer polls for select posts as the new governance framework settled in.

Now the BCCI’s affidavit has thrown that assumption into doubt.

“The state bodies need to know if they have to follow the Sports Governance Act or the BCCI constitution,” a senior official told TOI, capturing the unease in the corridors of power. The same official pointed out that when the government itself has said sports bodies can defer elections till the end of 2026, it is natural for every unit to assume it can wait.

Yet the BCCI, long an advocate of continuity in administration, is now pushing for elections in Odisha on the basis of its own constitution and Supreme Court-backed term limits, not on the ministry’s advisory.

The result is a governance grey zone. Two sets of rules. One sport.

Cooling-off, conflict of interest and a clash of models

The flashpoint is not just timing. It is philosophy.

Under the BCCI constitution, the Lodha-inspired cooling-off period remains a hard line: office-bearers must step away after a fixed stretch in power. The idea was to break entrenched fiefdoms and curb conflicts of interest.

The National Sports Governance Act, by contrast, does not prescribe any cooling-off period. It also relaxes certain conflict-of-interest provisions. For many long-time administrators, that is an invitation to stability. For reformists, it is a step back.

Inside OCA, the current office-bearers say they are simply following the government’s directions and the ministry’s advisory. The BCCI has taken the opposite view, insisting on its own rulebook and the Supreme Court’s template.

If the BCCI eventually comes under the National Sports Board’s ambit, the picture changes dramatically. The mandatory cooling-off period in the BCCI constitution would no longer bind its office-bearers. For some at the top, that would be a liberation. For others, it would be the quiet burial of the Lodha era.

Parliament praise, RTI shield, and a shifting narrative

The tension is sharpened by what happened in Parliament in August 2025.

During the debate on the bill, Vijayawada MP and Andhra Cricket Association president Kesineni Sivanath welcomed the legislation and said the BCCI already followed its core principles. The message was clear: cricket’s power centre was not a rogue body resisting reform.

At the same time, the government carved out a key exemption. The BCCI would stay outside the Right to Information (RTI) Act because it does not depend on public funds.

In May, the Central Information Commission reinforced that shield, ruling that the Lodha Committee recommendations were only “advisory in nature” while exempting the board from RTI. That line has now re-emerged in the broader debate: if Lodha is advisory, how far can its spirit be enforced?

The BCCI’s latest affidavit, and its insistence that cricket is not a “designated sport”, adds another layer to that narrative. Reform, yes — but only on the board’s terms.

Power, tenure and what comes next

The board itself is not untouched by the clock.

The BCCI held its own elections last September, before the sports ministry issued its advisory. Vice-president Rajiv Shukla will complete six years in office next year. Secretary Devajit Saikia is in his second term as an office-bearer and is set to complete six years in 2028, after which the BCCI constitution would force a cooling-off period.

If the National Sports Governance Act eventually extends fully to cricket and the BCCI accepts National Sports Board oversight, those internal term brakes could vanish. The same faces could stay longer. The carefully constructed rotation that Lodha tried to impose would be rewritten.

For now, though, the immediate battleground is Odisha, the immediate question is which rulebook applies, and the immediate consequence is confusion in state associations that thought they had clarity until 2026.

The law will speak in court on September 1. When it does, will Indian cricket still be governed by a Supreme Court-mandated reform charter, or by a new national template that treats it like every other sport?