Gujarat High Court: In a petition on electoral disqualification in cricket bodies, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of the nominations of candidates for the posts of office-bearers of Baroda Cricket Association (BCA), the Single Judge Bench of Niral R. Mehta, J., held that the electoral officer failed to discharge his statutory duties by not deciding on the petitioners’ objections and that Respondents 4 to 7, incurred disqualification based on tenure-based norms established by the Supreme Court.
Background
The petitioners, members of the BCA, challenged the candidature of Respondents 4 to 7 for the posts of President, Secretary, and Treasurer for the 2026-2029 term. The petitioner challenged the principle of tenure-based disqualification, following the reforms initiated by the Supreme Court in the BCCI governance case and the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee.
After the Election Notification of 6 January 2026, the respondents submitted their nominations. The petitioners filed written objections on 20 January 2026, asserting that the respondents had completed a cumulative tenure of nine years or more as Councillors or office-bearers and were thus disqualified. However, the electoral officer published the final list of candidates without adjudicating these objections or communicating any decision to the petitioners
Analysis of Tenure Limits and Electoral Disqualification in Cricket Bodies
The Court, for the merits of disqualification, relied on the historical background of Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, where the Supreme Court accepted that no individual should treat the administration of cricket as a personal turf. The Court then analysed the legality of relevant rules and regulations and observed that under Rule 15, the Apex Council plays an important role in the governance of the Baroda Cricket Association. It consists of thirteen Councillors, out of which five are elected as “office-bearers” in accordance with Rule 6, and the remaining eight are elected under Rules 14(2)(a) to (c).
Rule 14(3) provides a disqualification clause stating that a person becomes ineligible to be a Councillor if he or she has served as an office-bearer of the BCCI or the BCA for a cumulative period of nine years. The term “office-bearer” includes the President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer.
Further, Rule 6(4) prescribes a three-year cooling-off period, under which an office-bearer who has served two consecutive terms cannot contest further elections in the BCA unless the cooling-off period is completed. During this period, such person cannot be a member of the Governing Council or any committee, and the Rule also prevents circumvention of the restriction by serving in other committees.
Additionally, Rule 6(5) provides that a person is disqualified from being an office-bearer, member of the Apex Council, Governing Council, any committee, or representative to the BCCI if he or she has served as an office-bearer of the BCCI or the BCA for a cumulative period of nine years.
Rule 14(4-A) provides that an elected Councillor holds office for three years, with a maximum of three terms on the Apex Council. It further states that a Councillor who has served two consecutive terms in the BCA must undergo a cooling-off period of three years before contesting any further election. During this period, the Councillor cannot be a member of the Governing Council or any committee of the BCA, and the rule also prevents circumvention of this restriction by serving in any other committee or governing body of the association.
On a conjoint reading of Rules 6 and 14, the Court held that the entire period served as an “office-bearer” or as a “Councillor” in the Apex Council, including service in any committee or governing body, must be counted while calculating the cumulative nine-year limit for disqualification. Any other interpretation would defeat the Supreme Court’s directions and allow individuals to circumvent the tenure and cooling-off provisions.
Accordingly, the Court opined that Respondents 4 to 7 had incurred disqualification from contesting for the post of office-bearer, and the electoral officer ought to have rejected their nomination forms and declared them disqualified.
The Court examined the conduct of the electoral officer under Rule 33 of the BCA Rules and Regulations. It noted that the electoral officer is entrusted with the statutory duty of overseeing the entire election process, including the scrutiny of nominations and the final adjudication of disputes regarding disqualification. The Court opined that by failing to decide on the objections and keeping the purported exercise in a sealed cover, the electoral officer failed to act independently or fairly, violating the principles of natural justice and that its conduct highly deprecated. The Court also observed that had, the electoral officer discharged his statutory duty fairly, the present litigation could have been well avoided.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the acceptance of the nomination forms of Respondents 4 to 7 and held their inclusion in the final list of candidates was unsustainable. The election held on 15 February 2026 insofar as it related to them was quashed. The electoral officer was directed to proceed further with the election process and declare the results in accordance with law and the observations made by the Court.
[Pradeepsinh Chandrasinh Solanki v. BCCI, SCA No. 1670/2026, decided on 16-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Mihir joshi, Apurva vakil, Senior Advocate, Anuj K Trivedi, Vaidehi N Parikh, Prit U Shah, Advocates
For the respondent: Sudhir Nanavati Senior Advocate, Vandan K Baxi, Shalin Mehta Senior ADVOCATE, Mrugen K Purohit, Devang Nanavati Senior Advocate, Manan B Pandya, SP Majmudar, Meet V Jani, Varun M Pradhan, Saurabh Soparkar Senior Advocate, Sahil M Shah, Nanavati & Nanavati
