BCCI vs National Sports Governance Act: A Legal Battle in Odisha
New Delhi: A courtroom tussle in Odisha has opened a fresh fault line between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), its state units, and the country’s new sports law — and no one seems entirely sure which rulebook to follow.
At the heart of the dispute is a simple but explosive question: who governs Indian cricket — the BCCI’s own constitution or the National Sports Governance Act, 2025?
BCCI draws a line in Odisha
In an affidavit filed before the Odisha High Court in a case concerning the Odisha Cricket Association’s (OCA) elections, the BCCI has taken a firm stand. Authorized by board secretary Devajit Saikia, the legal team has argued that OCA must conduct its elections strictly under the existing BCCI constitution, amended in 2019 after the Lodha Committee recommendations.
The affidavit makes the board’s position clear: cricket, it claims, is not a “designated sport” under the National Sports Governance Act. Without that notification, the BCCI insists, the Act does not apply to the game.
That single assertion has thrown state units into a spin.
Many associations believed they could push back elections until December 2026, relying on a sports ministry notice issued last December. They had read the advisory as a green light to delay fresh polls for certain posts. Now, with the BCCI pressing for adherence to its own constitution, that assumption suddenly looks shaky.
Cooling-off clause at the centre of the storm
The biggest flashpoint is the cooling-off period for office-bearers.
Under the BCCI constitution, no office-bearer can continue for more than two consecutive terms. The Lodha-inspired cooling-off provision was designed to break entrenched power structures and encourage rotation in leadership.
The National Sports Governance Act, however, does not mandate any cooling-off period. It also relaxes some provisions related to conflict of interest, offering a more lenient framework for administrators.
That contrast has split the OCA case down the middle. Incumbent OCA officials say they are following the government’s directions and the new Act. The BCCI, in its affidavit, is pushing them back towards the Supreme Court-mandated model that reshaped its own governance.
“It is submitted that even though the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 has been enacted, the sport of cricket has not been notified as a ‘designated sport’ for the said National Sports Governance Act, 2025 to apply,” the BCCI has stated in court.
The affidavit goes on to stress that the OCA’s own rules mirror the BCCI’s term-limit provisions, and that elections must be held on time “in order to avoid continuation of any person for more than two terms consecutively and to uphold the spirit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
The next hearing is listed for September 1. The outcome will be watched closely far beyond Odisha.
Parliament praise, courtroom conflict
The irony is hard to miss.
In August 2025, during a parliamentary discussion on the National Sports Governance Bill, Vijayawada MP and Andhra Cricket Association president Kesineni Sivanath had welcomed the legislation. He said the BCCI already followed its core principles. The only major carve-out, it was noted in the House, was that the government had exempted the BCCI from the Right to Information (RTI) Act because the board does not depend on public funds.
Earlier this year, in May, the Central Information Commission also weighed in. While exempting the BCCI from the RTI Act, it described the Lodha Committee’s recommendations as “advisory in nature”.
That line has now acquired fresh significance. If Lodha is merely advisory, and the new sports law does not yet officially cover cricket, where exactly does the BCCI sit — inside the government’s governance net or just outside it?
State units left in limbo
Inside the board, the latest affidavit has only deepened uncertainty.
“If the government has notified that sports bodies can defer elections till December 2026, every state unit would believe it can wait until then before holding elections for select posts,” a senior official told TOI.
Power brokers within the BCCI have long argued that continuity in administration is crucial. Elections every few years, coupled with cooling-off clauses, can disrupt long-term planning. Now, the board’s refusal to align itself fully with the government advisory risks unsettling the very stability its top brass values.
“It has also created confusion over the governance of the sport. The state bodies need to know if they have to follow the Sports Governance Act or the BCCI constitution,” the official said.
That confusion is not theoretical. It affects when officials must step aside, how long they can serve, and who gets to shape cricket’s future in each state.
High stakes for BCCI’s own brass
The stakes are personal as well as institutional.
The BCCI held its own elections last September, before the sports ministry issued its advisory on deferring polls. Under the current BCCI constitution, vice-president Rajiv Shukla will complete six years in office next year. Secretary Devajit Saikia, now in his second term as an office-bearer, is set to complete six years in 2028, after which the cooling-off period kicks in.
If, at any stage, the BCCI is brought under the ambit of the National Sports Board (NSB) and the National Sports Governance Act fully covers cricket, those mandatory cooling-off rules would no longer apply to its office-bearers.
For some, that would mean extended tenures and continuity. For others, it would mark a retreat from the reformist thrust that followed the Supreme Court’s intervention and the Lodha Committee’s work.
For now, everything hinges on a technicality: whether cricket is formally notified as a “designated sport”.
Until that call is made — in the corridors of power in Delhi and in courtrooms like the one in Odisha — Indian cricket’s administrators will continue to operate in a grey zone, torn between a constitution born out of judicial scrutiny and a new law that promises reform on its own terms.
