Baroda Cricket Association Elections: High Court Slams Electoral Officer For Ignoring Objections To Nomination, Disqualifies 4 Candidates
The Gujarat High Court set aside the candidature of four persons from contesting elections to the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA) after noting that they had completed cumulative term of 9 years as Councillor or Office Bearer. It said that for determining disqualification, the entire period served either as an “Office Bearer” or as a member of the Apex Council in the capacity of...
The Gujarat High Court set aside the candidature of four persons from contesting elections to the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA) after noting that they had completed cumulative term of 9 years as Councillor or Office Bearer.
It said that for determining disqualification, the entire period served either as an “Office Bearer” or as a member of the Apex Council in the capacity of a “Councillor”, including service as an elected “Office Bearer” and/or as a member of any Committee or Governing Council, must be taken into account while computing the 9 year period.
It said that any other interpretation would permit individuals to continue in office beyond the permissible cumulative period of 9 years by circumventing the provisions of Rules 6 and 14 of BCA's Rules.
At the outset, Justice Niral R Mehta in his 114 page judgment said:
"The present case is a glaring instance of non-exercise of powers by the Electoral Officer and failure to discharge the statutory duties cast upon him. The case further reflects a clear attempt to circumvent the statutory provisions with a view to retain authority and/or continue in power beyond the period prescribed under the Rules and Regulations of the Baroda Cricket Association, as well as in contravention of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014".
For context the Supreme Court had in proceedings concerning reforms in the BCCI and on the basis of the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee, accepted the principle of tenure-based disqualification, holding that any individual who has completed a cumulative tenure of nine years in a State Cricket Association shall incur disqualification. It had also directed that upon completion of two consecutive terms, a mandatory cooling-off period of 3 years shall be observed.
Objections undecided, Electoral Officer failed to discharge duties
The court said that the post of Electoral Officer was created pursuant to the report submitted by the Justice Lodha Committee and the recommendations made therein, which were subsequently accepted by the Supreme Court. The court noted that the Electoral Officer was envisaged as an authority responsible for conducting and supervising the entire election process, commencing from the filing of nominations up to the declaration of results, including the resolution of disputes and objections arising in the course of the election. It said,
"Rule 33 of the Rules and Regulations of the BCA casts a duty upon the Apex Council to appoint an Electoral Officer who shall be a former member of the State Election Commission. Rule 33(2) provides that the Electoral Officer so appointed shall oversee and supervise the entire election process, including the scrutiny of electoral rolls of the Councillors and the players' Cricket Association, and that all nominations and candidatures shall be subject to his scrutiny in accordance with the Rules. Rule 33(3) further imposes a statutory obligation upon the Electoral Officer to decide any dispute or objection pertaining to nominations and candidatures, and such decision is declared to be final and conclusive. Thus, statutory duty is cast upon the Electoral Officer to oversee and supervise the entire election process, including adjudication upon objections relating to nominations and candidatures in accordance with the Rules.
Therefore, when detailed objections were raised before the Electoral Officer with respect to the nominations of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, specifically pointing out that they had incurred disqualification and were therefore ineligible to contest the election, their nominations were liable to be rejected. In such circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the Electoral Officer to decide the disputes and objections relating to the nomination and candidature of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and to communicate such decision after granting an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. However, in the present case, by failing to decide the objections and/or disputes raised through the application dated 20th January 2026, the Electoral Officer, who is a former member of the State Election Commission, has failed to discharge the statutory duty cast upon him".
The court said that while exercising powers under Rule 33, it was incumbent upon the Electoral Officer to ensure that all nominations and candidatures were in strict conformity with the Rules.
"However, in the present case, by failing to adjudicate upon the objections and disputes relating to the nominations and candidatures of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, the Electoral Officer has neither acted independently nor fairly, and has failed to adhere to the very object and purpose for which the office of the Electoral Officer was created,"the court said.
The court further expressed "surprise" at the submission of the Electoral Officer, that the Officer did consider the objections raised with regard to nominations of the Respondents Nos.4 to 7 in light of the Memorandum of Association and the Rules applicable to the BCA.
Keeping decision in sealed cover without informing objectors unknown to law
However he had found that Respondents Nos.4 to 7 had not incurred any disqualification under any of the provisions of Rules. It was submitted that the entire exercise undertaken by the officer "had been kept in a sealed cover and can be produced, if directed".
"Such a stand taken by the Electoral Officer not communicating any decision on the objections to the objectors and keeping the same in a sealed cover is as such unknown to the law. Even the same can be said to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The decision on the objections as to nomination and candidature is / was required to be communicated to the objectors so that an aggrieved person can challenge the same before the Court having jurisdiction and / or can take recourse to law. In the present case, the objectors / petitioners are neither communicated any decision on their objections nor they are communicated that their objections are considered by the Electoral Officer and / or the same are overruled. Apart from this, even no such decision, if any, on the objections raised by the petitioners, which is said to have been kept in a sealed cover, is forthcoming" it said.
Noting that the Officer had not placed its decision on the objections if any before the court, it said:
"Transparency and fairness required at least, at this stage, to place on record a copy of the decision without awaiting any direction from the Court, more particularly, when it is a duty cast upon the Electoral Officer to supervise the entire election and deal with the objections on nomination and candidature of any contestants. It was the bounded duty of the Electoral Officer to deal with the objections raised by the petitioners with reasons and to communicate the same to the objectors / petitioners. By not doing so, the Electoral Officer has failed to perform its duty fairly and as such it can be said to be in breach of trust reposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while directing to create post of Electoral Officer by giving wide powers of supervision right from nomination to declaring the result".
Background
The petitioners-members of association–had challenged the candidature of four persons–respondent Nos. 4 to 7 from contesting for posts of Office Bearers–President, Secretary and Treasurer for the term 2026–2029. The challenge was on the ground that the candidates stood disqualified, having completed a cumulative tenure of nine years or more in the capacity of Councillor and/or Office Bearer in the Apex Council.
Pursuant to the notification dated 6-01-2026, Respondent No.4 Kiran More submitted his nomination for the post of President, Respondent Nos.5 Amul Jikar and 6 Anant Indulkar submitted nominations for post of Honorary Secretary, and Respondent No.7 Amar Petiwale for the post of Honorary Treasurer.
The petitioners objected to the candidature on the ground that they were disqualified in view of Supreme Court judgment. The petitioners objections were not adjudicated nor were they given opportunity of hearing. On the contrary, the Electoral Officer proceeded to publish the final list of candidates.
Subsequent to the publication of the final list, the petitioners once again approached the Electoral Officer reiterating that Respondent Nos.4 to 7 had completed more than 9 years of tenure and were disqualified. This representation also remained undecided. The petitioners moved the high court.
Respondent Nos.4 to 7, argued that Regulation 40 provides for the forum of an Ombudsman, who is competent to adjudicate upon grievances of the nature raised by the petitioners. It was submitted that Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 (BCCI v/s Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors) is still pending before Supreme Court and therefore, in the event of any ambiguity or clarification with regard to tenure based disqualification, the petitioners ought to have approached. It was submitted that Supreme Court, by order dated 20-09-2019 passed in various interlocutory applications in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, clarified that disqualification would be confined only to the posts of Office Bearers of Cricket Associations.
It was submitted that restriction and disqualification contemplated under the reformatory directions of Apex Court as well as the Bye-laws are confined only to “Office Bearers”, and no reference has been made to “Councillors” or members of any Committee. It is, therefore, contended that a Councillor who has completed nine years in such capacity would nonetheless remain eligible to contest for the post of Office Bearer.
Findings
The high court took note of the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment which had while accepting the recommendations of Lodha Committee observed that concept of cooling-off must be accepted as a mechanism to prevent a few individuals from treating the administration of cricket as their personal domain, emphasizing that the sport would be better served in the absence of cricketing oligopolies.
The high court thereafter said that respondents 4-7 cumulatively completed nine years on different posts, either as “Office Bearers” / member of the Apex Council / member of the Managing Committee in the Apex Council.
Even on merits, the court said that as per the rules and regulations, Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are found to have incurred disqualification from contesting the election for the post of “Office Bearer”.
"On a conjoint reading of Rule 6 and Rule 14, it becomes evident that Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, having served as “Office Bearers” / member of Committee / member of the Apex Council for a cumulative period of nine years, have incurred the disqualification prescribed under the Rules...The underlying object of prescribing disqualification upon completion of a cumulative period of nine years, coupled with a cooling-off period, is to ensure that no individual continues to exercise control over the administration and management of cricketing bodies for an unduly long period, thereby preventing the development of vested interests...the Apex Council is the principal governing body entrusted with the governance of the affairs of the Association. If the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents were to be accepted, it would imply that only the tenure served as an “Office Bearer” for a cumulative period of nine years would attract disqualification, while the tenure served as a “Councillor” would stand excluded. Such an interpretation would enable a person to circumvent the disqualification provisions by serving, for instance, as a “Councillor” for cumulative period of nine years and thereafter, again re-enter in the Apex Council as a “Councillor” under the garb of “Office Bearer” for another nine years, which would effectively result retention of power for total years as 9 + 9 in the Apex Council, which is not permissible," the court said.
It thus observed that the Rules clearly contemplate that the provisions relating to disqualification and cooling-off period cannot be circumvented in any manner.
The court allowed the petition and held that respondents 4-7 stood disqualified.
Case title: PRADEEPSINH CHANDRASINH SOLANKI & ANR. v/s BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1670 of 2026