BCCI's Governance Battle with Odisha Cricket Association

New Delhi: A routine state association election has suddenly dragged Indian cricket into the heart of a governance storm.

At the centre of it all is the Odisha Cricket Association (OCA), a fresh National Sports Governance Act, 2025, and a firm affidavit from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) that makes one thing clear: the board is in no mood to cede control of how it runs its affairs.

BCCI draws a line

In an affidavit filed before the Odisha High Court in a case related to OCA’s elections, the BCCI’s legal team, authorised by secretary Devajit Saikia, has insisted that the state body must conduct its polls strictly under the existing BCCI constitution. That constitution was reworked in 2019 after the Lodha Committee’s recommendations and remains the board’s governance backbone.

The key argument is blunt. The BCCI has told the court that cricket is not a “designated sport” under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. If the sport has not been notified, the Act does not apply. And if the Act does not apply, the BCCI constitution prevails.

That stance keeps the BCCI outside the ambit of the National Sports Board (NSB) for now and sends a clear signal to its state units: Delhi, not the sports ministry, will not dictate cricket’s electoral timelines and rules.

The next hearing in the case is listed for September 1. By then, the ripples from this affidavit may have spread far beyond Cuttack.

Confusion in the states

The fallout is already visible. Several state associations had assumed they could delay fresh elections until December 2026, banking on a sports ministry notice issued last December that allowed sports bodies to defer polls.

The new Act only added to that belief. It does not prescribe a cooling-off period for office-bearers and eases some conflict-of-interest provisions. For many long-serving administrators, it looked like a window to extend their runs in power without interruption.

OCA’s current office-bearers have claimed they are simply following the government’s directions. The BCCI has taken the opposite view and reminded the court that the OCA’s own rules mirror the board’s — including the cap of two consecutive terms for an office-bearer.

The affidavit stresses that “timely elections should be held” to prevent anyone from continuing beyond two straight terms and to “uphold the spirit” of the Supreme Court’s judgment that underpinned the Lodha reforms. That line goes to the heart of the tussle: who decides what “good governance” in Indian sport looks like — the government, or a powerful, wealthy, and legally savvy cricket board?

A senior official, speaking to TOI, underlined the unease this has triggered across the system. State units, he said, are now unsure whether to align themselves with the Sports Governance Act or stick to the BCCI constitution. The uncertainty cuts to the core of how cricket is run in India.

Old arguments, new setting

The irony is hard to miss. In Parliament in August 2025, Vijayawada MP and Andhra Cricket Association president Kesineni Sivanath had welcomed the National Sports Governance Bill. He said the BCCI already followed its core principles. The government, he pointed out, had only kept the board outside the Right to Information (RTI) Act because it did not depend on public funds.

In May this year, the Central Information Commission reinforced that distance, exempting the BCCI from RTI and describing the Lodha Committee’s recommendations as “advisory in nature”. That description subtly undercut the moral weight of the reforms that reshaped the BCCI constitution in 2019.

Now, the board is using that same constitution as a shield. The message: those “advisory” recommendations have been written into our rules, and until cricket is formally notified under the new Act, those rules stand.

Inside the BCCI, the stance has created what one official called an “ambiguous situation”. For years, powerful voices within the board have argued that continuity in administration is essential — a polite way of saying experienced hands should not be forced out too quickly. The sports ministry’s advisory to defer elections seemed to align with that instinct.

Yet the affidavit in Odisha pushes for timely elections and reinforces term limits. It is a move that could unsettle the very continuity the board’s power brokers have long prized, just when a new crop of office-bearers is still finding its feet.

High stakes for the top brass

The timing is not incidental. The BCCI held its own elections last September, before the sports ministry issued its advisory. That allowed the current regime to settle in under familiar rules.

Vice-president Rajiv Shukla will complete six years in office next year. Secretary Devajit Saikia is in his second term and is scheduled to hit the six-year mark in 2028, after which the BCCI constitution mandates a cooling-off period.

If, at any stage, cricket is brought under the NSB and the National Sports Governance Act fully kicks in for the BCCI, that cooling-off requirement would vanish. The Act does not insist on such breaks. For senior board officials, that is no small detail; it could reshape the length and rhythm of their tenures.

For now, though, the BCCI is arguing the opposite in court: that the Lodha-inspired checks and balances — including limits on consecutive terms — must be respected in Odisha.

It leaves Indian cricket in a peculiar place. A powerful board, proud of its autonomy, is leaning on court-mandated reforms to keep a state unit in line, even as a new national law hovers in the background, offering a very different template for sports governance.

The next step will not be taken in a stadium, but in a courtroom in Odisha. When the judges speak on September 1, they will not just decide the fate of one state association’s election schedule. They could help define how far the Indian state can reach into the game that, for decades, has preferred to govern itself.