BCCI’s stance on the Sports Act is creating confusion in the board

Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) secretary Devajit Saikia, left, with BCCI Center of Excellence (CoE) head VVS Laxman (PTI Photo) New Delhi: Recent developments in the Urida Cricket Association (OCA) election matter to the Urida High Court have created confusion among the state units of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) over the 2025 National Sports Governance Bill.An affidavit filed by BCCI’s legal team and authorized secretary of the board, Devajit Saikia, argued that the OCA must conduct its elections under the existing BCCI constitution, which was amended based on the recommendations of the Lodha Committee in 2019.The BCCI maintained that cricket was not a “designated sport” even after the Act was enacted, indicating its reluctance to come under the purview of the National Sports Board (NSB).Several state associations were under the impression that fresh elections would stay until December 2026, according to a sports ministry notification issued last December. The biggest sticking point is the cooling-off period for officials. The law does not set any cooling-off period and also relaxes some areas related to conflicts of interest.OCA incumbents have maintained that they are following the government’s guidelines, while the BCCI has taken the opposite stand.“It is stated that even though the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 has been enacted, cricket has not been notified as a ‘designated sport’ for the said National Sports Governance Act, 2025 to apply,” the BCCI said in an affidavit.“Since the Odisha Cricket Association has similar provisions that no office bearer should serve for more than two consecutive terms, it is imperative that early elections are held to prevent any person from continuing for more than two consecutive terms and to uphold the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment,” read the affidavit, a copy of which is with TOI.The next meeting is scheduled for September 1.Interestingly, during a parliamentary debate in August 2025, Vijayawada MP and Andhra Cricket Association president Kesineni Sivanath welcomed the bill and said the BCCI was already following its core principles.It was mentioned that the government has only exempted BCCI from the Right to Information (RTI) Act as it is not dependent on public funds. In May, the Central Information Commission, while exempting BCCI from the RTI Act, said the Lodha Committee’s recommendations were only “advisory in nature”.BCCI’s recent stand has created an ambiguous situation in the board.“If the government has announced that sports bodies can postpone elections until December 2026, every government department would believe that they can wait until then to hold elections for select posts. The powers that be in the BCCI have always advocated the importance of continuity in administration. The board’s reluctance to comply with the government’s order may disrupt this at a time when new office bearers are gaining experience.”“It has also created confusion about the governance of the sport. State bodies need to know whether they have to follow the Sports Governance Act or the BCCI constitution,” a senior official told TOI.The BCCI held its elections last September before the sports ministry issued its recommendation. BCCI vice-president Rajiv Shukla will complete six years in office next year, while secretary Saikia is in his second term and will complete six years in 2028 before entering a cooling-off period under the BCCI constitution.If the BCCI eventually comes under the purview of the NSB, the mandatory cooling-off period would not apply to its office bearers.