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 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 dutiesThe 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...

Baroda Cricket Association Elections: High Court Slams Electoral Officer For Ignoring Objections To Nomination, Disqualifies 4 Candidates

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags