The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has called for the Odisha Cricket Association (OCA) to hold its delayed elections without further postponement, with the dispute now before the State High Court and carrying potential implications for the state body’s funding and BCCI membership. The competing positions centre on whether the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 currently applies to cricket, according to a report by Cricbuzz journalist Vijay Tagore.
OCA elections were due in October 2025 but have been postponed twice. The association held Special General Meetings on August 31, 2025 and February 22, 2026, with the first deferment linked to preparations for the December 9 T20I between India and South Africa and the second following a recommendation from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.
The court proceedings were initiated after former Odisha Cricketer and Coach Lalitendu Bidyadhar Mohapatra, who had previously contested OCA elections, sought judicial intervention to have the association conduct its polls.
BCCI presses OCA to conduct elections
The BCCI has based its position on the governance requirements applying to its state affiliates, including the OCA’s bylaws, the BCCI Memorandum of Association and directions stemming from the Supreme Court.
BCCI Senior Manager (Legal) Melinda Colaco stated in an affidavit filed in the State High Court: “…it’s imperative that the Odisha Cricket Association should hold its election immediately”.
The dispute carries consequences beyond determining when OCA members next vote. Under the provisions cited in the proceedings, failure to comply with the relevant Lodha governance requirements can affect an association’s eligibility to receive BCCI grants, while a prolonged period of ineligibility can ultimately put its membership status at risk.
Mohapatra stated in his State High Court petition: “It is submitted that non-compliance with the (above provisions – Lodha provisions) makes an association disentitled for a grant under Rule 3 (b) (1) of the BCCI MoA. Further as per Rule (b) (3) if any association continues to be disentitled under Rule 3 (b), for a continuous period of two years, then the BCCI may derecognise as a member,”
The petition also maintains that Supreme Court directions remain binding on the state association, while the BCCI has argued that any further election delay would conflict with the existing governance framework governing the OCA.
OCA points to new sports governance framework
OCA has taken a different position on the timing of its elections. Its General Body opted to wait while the association considers the implications of the National Sports Governance Act, with cricket’s return to the Olympic programme at Los Angeles 2028 forming part of its reasoning.
OCA Secretary Sanjay Behera submitted before the State High Court: “However, by a majority of vote/opinion, the Election was deferred to assess the impact of National Sports Governance Act 2025, more particularly in view of the fact that Cricket has been included as Olympic Sport for the forthcoming Olympic Games to be held in the United States of America in the year 2028,”
The OCA has also relied on a Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports circular concerning the deferment of upcoming National Sports Federation elections until December 31, 2026 as a transitional measure. That position has placed the application of the new national sports governance regime at the heart of the disagreement over whether OCA should proceed with its election immediately.
BCCI challenges application of Sports Act to cricket
The BCCI’s response turns on the status of cricket under the National Sports Governance Act itself. While the legislation has been enacted, the governing body maintains that this alone does not make its provisions applicable to the sport.
Colaco stated in the BCCI’s affidavit: “Even though the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, has been enacted, the sport of cricket has not been notified as a designated for the National Sports Governance act, 2025 to apply,”
That distinction underpins the BCCI’s argument that OCA remains subject to the existing requirements governing BCCI affiliates rather than being able to postpone its elections on the basis of the new legislation.
The proceedings have also extended into the legal character of cricket administration, including whether the functions performed by cricket bodies constitute public duties for the purposes of judicial scrutiny. In its submissions, the BCCI cited the Supreme Court in stating: “BCCI discharges important public functions and is therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction.”
Election dispute awaits court resolution
The competing submissions leave the High Court to consider two distinct governance positions: the BCCI is seeking compliance with the framework already applicable to its member associations, while OCA has deferred its election as it assesses the impact of India’s new sports governance regime.
At stake for OCA are not only the timing of its leadership elections but also the financial and membership consequences identified under the BCCI’s rules if the association falls into sustained non-compliance. The dispute is before the State High Court, bringing the question of OCA’s delayed elections and the applicability of the National Sports Governance Act to cricket into the same proceedings.
