'What Is The Purpose?: Gujarat High Court On Baroda Cricket Association Mandating Presence Of Candidate For Election Scrutiny

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday (January 15) orally questioned the Baroda Cricket Association its justification for notifying a condition which mandates candidates contesting for elections of the association to remain personally present for scrutiny of nomination forms next week.

The court was hearing a candidate's plea who had challenging the association's notice dated 06.01.2026 issued for election of Baroda Cricket Association for the term 2026 to 2029. The petitioner–contesting for President's post– said that his son's wedding was scheduled on January 20 in Goa, on the same day on which the scrutinization of candidates' forms is to take place.

During the hearing today, after the Association's counsel submitted that the nomination of the petitioner shall not be cancelled on ground of his absence, and that petitioner's representative shall be permitted to appear before election officer during scrutinization of nomination forms, the court disposed of the plea.

For context, as per Clause G of the notice the scrutiny of nominations is scheduled on 20.01.2026, from 11 AM onwards where candidates must remain present. As per clause-E nomination affidavits are to be submitted on 17.01.2026 and 19.01.2026 between 11 hours to 18 hours and thereafter, the nominations shall not be considered.

The counsel appearing for the association submitted before Justice Niral Mehta that a plea seeking vacation of the court's January 9 interim order has been moved wherein the court had directed that the petitioner's candidature shall not be rejected.

The court however orally said, "As such there is no stay, what kind of vacation you want?" The counsel said that the dispute was with respect to clause G of the notice.

He said that this was not a new requirement. The court said that the association will have to justify through its by laws if any, whether at the time of scrutiny of nomination the candidate presence is required or if it can make it mandatory.

"Only three words have been added...There is nothing in Constitution which talks of presence at the time of scrutiny," the counsel said. The court then asked as to what was the purpose of inserting clause of candidate to be personally present during nomination process.

He said that even previous election notice also said that "in presence of". The court said that, "we may not go to the past. Today when...because of this insertion of clause of personally remaining present that jeopardizes his right then it can be challenged. Relevance may not be there".

The counsel however said that it was not new clause as "in presence of" candidates remains the same in both election notices. He said that the present notice says candidates "must remain present". The court said that context and intention was different of both notices. "It was never made must...The entire intention changed," the court orally said.

The court then said that association can follow earlier notice; to this the senior counsel for petitioner said that it should not be that his candidature is rejected solely on this ground.

"Then this can be said," the court said. To this the counsel said, "There are 2000 members. If one relaxation is done we will be flooded with..."

"It will not be. This is opening a flooding gate. If you remove (condition) no one will come here...What is purpose and intention of association to keep candidate present at time of scrutiny? What is the justification?," the court orally remarked.

To which the counsel said that there has to be proper verification. The court then asked if such verification can only be done in person.

"You must have a concrete material to show that why this addition of mandatory presence is necessary. I will not write it provided you say that you wont reject on that sole ground. This is nothing but a shrewd calculation...what is basic justification for insertion of condition. It is his nomination. You are election officer you have to scrutinize the form. What inquiry will you conduct? You will have to see the form not the face. Why do you want this condition?," the court orally remarked.

The court also said that assuming the body has the power, but purpose and way of exercising such power must be shown and from where the body thought it fit to have such a condition.

"If nothing on record then it is arbitrary use of power...You have all powers. No dispute, but power has to be exercised to see that process is more effective...in a democratic manner. So show me why presence is made necessary. Please take instruction. We are not in hurry," the court added.

The counsel thereafter took instruction in the matter and submitted that association was guided by notification of earlier years right from 2019 (the first election). He again took instructions and submitted, "In this particular case, it shall not be disturbed but it may not be treated as precedent. It will open a pandora's box".

The court said that if the counsel makes a statement then it wont be a precedent. The counsel meanwhile said that in the specific case petitioner's representative may be permitted in his place and his candidature will not be rejected but the clause in the notice may remain.

Meanwhile the senior counsel appearing for petitioner said that the problem may occur wherein "others may be contesting and fresh petitions may come". The court however said, "Let it come. Let it be. Today your grievance is redressed...He (Association) is saying your candidature wont be rejected...Today you are holding brief of this petitioner...Otherwise all should have come here".

After hearing the matter for some time the court in its order dictated:

"Mr Hathi the learned advocate for the Baroda Cricket Association under instruction submitted that nomination of the petitioner namely Dr. Darshan Navin Banker shall not be rejected on the ground of not remaining present during the scruitnization of nomination form scheduled on Jan 20 and further submitted that one representative of the Doctor Darshan Navin Banker shall be permitted to appear before election officer during scrutinization of nomination forms and shall be permitted to make representation if any objection raised and also be permitted to lodge his objection qua nomination of forms of other candidates. In view of aforesaid candid statement senior advocate for petitioner does not press this petition any further. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Needless to clarify that the cricket association is expected to hold the election in fair and democratic manner".

Case title: DR. DARSHAN NAVIN BANKER v/s BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION & ORS.

R/SCA/274/2026