Ex-Cricketer Kiran More Moves Gujarat High Court Against Disqualification To Contest Baroda Cricket Association Elections

Former cricketer Kiran More has moved the Gujarat High Court challenging a single judge's order which set aside the candidature of four persons (including More) from contesting elections to the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA).

The single judge had last month, set aside the candidature after noting that they had completed cumulative term of 9 years as Councillor or Office Bearer. It had 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. 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, the single judge had said.

During the hearing on Tuesday (April 7) senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for More submitted before a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray referred to the constitution of the apex council of the BCA which comprises of 10 elected posts and 3 nominated posts.

Out of the 10, Rohatgi said, 5 are office bearers and other 5 are described as apex council members. He said that as per the Constitution of the body, a person can contest for any post of the office bearer and hold any of those posts three times, having tenure of 3 years; which in total amounts to 9 years along with a cooling period of 3 years in between.

"Constitution says if you have done 9 years in any of the post of office bearers, then you cannot hold any other post whatsoever. That is the ban or ceiling put on office bearers. Beyond 9 you will be disqualified for contesting post of any of the 5 office bearers. For ordinary members/apex council members the disqualification also arises after total of 9 years.

At this stage the court orally asked if the 9 year cap applied as officer bearers as well as to the apex council members both or 9 years as a whole.

"Constitution says if you have done 9 years as an office bearer then there is a cap and you can't contest any other election all your life. But the vice versa is not true.If you have done 9 years as ordinary apex council member, then you don't go home you have a right to do 9 more years as an office bearer...Take my case. I'm a former cricketer. I have served 6 years as office bearer. He (More) has 3 more years left, if he wants. But he has served 3 years as ordinary apex council member. I have not served full 9 years as office bearer. The Single Judge is saying you have completed 9 (years)-6 as office bearer and 3 as apex council member. I'm saying that this does not create disqualification for 3 more years as office bearer," Rohatgi said.

He said that there was no dispute over the Constitution and it had been framed on the directions of the Supreme Court in a matter which is also pending. He said that the writ petition was filed without exhausting two alternative remedies–regulation 40 of Constitution which provides for an Ombudsman who is meant to decide disputes between members. He said that the petitioner did not go to the Ombudsman.

Rohatgi further said that BCA was a public charitable trust and was governed Bombay Public Trusts Act, wherein the authority–Charity Commissioner is to decide such disputes. He said that this remedy was also not availed by the petitioner.

Rohatgi said that the learned single judge should have asked petitioner to move Supreme Court in the pending matter (Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 BCCI v/s Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors) to get clarification over whether the Constitution provides for a hybrid disqualification. He said that the petition was completely premature.

The court asked about the recourse one can take if they want to challenge the election. To this Rohatgi said that remedy was under Section 22 of Bombay Public Trust Act. The court asked if there was any provision for raising objection to nomination of candidates. The counsel submitted that the Election Officer had accepted the nomination and that the officer gave reasons only where he had rejected the nominations.

After hearing the matter for some time the court listed it for further hearing on April 15.

Background

The court was hearing two appeals–one by Kiran More and the other by BCA, challenging the single judge's order.

The original 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 a writ petition.

Respondent Nos.4 to 7, argued before the single judge 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.

Case title: MR KIRAN SHANKAR RAO MORE & ANR. v/s PRADEEPSINH CHANDRASINH SOLANKI & ORS.

R/LPA/247/2026