Election process derailed by court injunction and internal ambiguity
The Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) elections, initially scheduled for November 30, have been pushed back a full month to December 30, following a legal and administrative standoff that has exposed deep divisions within the association.
Electoral Officer Dr. B. Basavaraju (Retd. IAS) announced the deferment in a letter dated November 17, citing an ongoing court injunction (O.S. No. 7680/2025), a lack of timely cooperation from the KSCA Managing Committee, and unresolved questions around election procedures.
According to the electoral officer, the KSCA only responded to his official communications on November 14 and 15 by Monday morning—well past the requested timeframe—and failed to provide adequate documentation to address the legal uncertainties. With the court hearing set for December 16, Dr. Basavaraju deemed it “inappropriate and unfair” to proceed until there was further judicial clarity.
Venkatesh Prasad and team slam the delay, call for urgent change
The deferment has triggered a wave of criticism from Venkatesh Prasad, the former India fast bowler contesting for the KSCA presidency with the backing of several ex-cricketers.
“We were stunned to learn that the elections have been deferred to 30 December. The primary focus here should be cricket, not politics. We are not participating for political reasons. Our sole objective is to revive top-level cricket at Chinnaswamy Stadium, to bring back international matches and IPL fixtures. That is our mission,” said Prasad, speaking to reporters.
“To make this possible, these elections must take place. That is the natural course of action. KSCA is at a pivotal juncture and needs change. Cricket is suffering right now, and the season is already underway. It is vital for elections to proceed so that a fresh committee can implement its vision. We have no issues with the Election Commission and fully respect their decisions. However, this postponement has come as a complete surprise.”
Backing Prasad, former KSCA treasurer Vinay Mruthyunjaya—now running for secretary—squarely blamed the managing committee for the disruption.
“The responsibility to conduct elections rests squarely with the Managing Committee. They are directly accountable for this delay. The Electoral Officer sent two letters to the Managing Committee on the 14th and 15th, but received no reply until today – only this morning did he get a response. There has been a total lack of cooperation from the Managing Committee,” he said, addressing reporters.
“I place responsibility entirely on the Managing Committee. The confusion has been orchestrated, leading to this outcome. We urge all KSCA members to take this issue seriously and demand an end to this undemocratic approach to governance.”
KSCA cites court order, insists it’s following due process
In response to the backlash, KSCA CEO Shubhendu Ghosh defended the association’s position, stating that a long-time member, A.V. Shashidara, had secured an interim order “ex parte” from the City Civil Court, without the KSCA being heard.
“KSCA had filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court seeking to set aside the orders passed ex parte by the City Civil Court in O.S. 7680/2025,” said Ghosh.
He noted that the High Court had set aside the interim order, prompting the KSCA to urge the electoral officer to resume the election schedule with minor modifications.
“The Hon’ble High Court today morning has set aside the above interim order,” Ghosh said. “KSCA is committed to have the elections conducted in accordance with directions of the division bench of the High Court.”
Shashidara hits back: “Court never stayed elections”
In a strongly worded rebuttal, A.V. Shashidara accused the KSCA of misrepresenting his legal action and misleading the public narrative around the delay.
“The association was incorrectly portraying the situation as if the court had stayed the elections, which is far from the truth,” he said.
Shashidara clarified that his civil suit, filed on November 3, was aimed solely at challenging what he called the Managing Committee’s “illegal” and “last-minute” reinterpretation of the nine-year term limit rule. He pointed out that three previous elections had been held under the existing interpretation.
“This new interpretation, arrived at through illegal means, is contrary to the judgments/orders of the Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, and registered Bye-Laws,” he said.
He further stated that his suit did not include any request to postpone or stay the elections.
“It is important to clarify that there is no prayer in the suit for postponement of the forthcoming elections. The subject matter of my filing is limited solely to the incorrect and illegal interpretation sought to be made by the Managing Committee.”
Addressing the Civil Court’s interim order of November 5, Shashidara explained:
“The Court did not impose any stay on the conduct of elections.”
He criticized the KSCA for proceeding with an affidavit in its AGM book on November 7 despite knowing the court’s directive, and noted that the High Court’s order setting aside the interim relief made no comment on the merits of his challenge.
Additionally, he pointed out that the Karnataka High Court had, on November 10, instructed the KSCA to continue with the elections as per the original schedule and bylaws.
“None of the parties, including the KSCA, submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there is a stay on the election, as the elections were not stayed,” he said.
“Instead of complying with the Court’s direction to proceed with elections as per the existing by-laws, the KSCA has chosen to postpone the elections without any valid or lawful reason. As a long-standing member of the KSCA committed to upholding fair governance and respect for judicial directions, it is regrettable to witness such disregard for the court’s order and established association norms.”
What’s next: December 30 or further delays?
The electoral road ahead for the KSCA remains murky. While the High Court has cleared the previous interim order and the electoral officer has set December 30 as the new date, the underlying dispute over governance, rules interpretation, and transparency has only deepened.
With high-profile candidates, court interventions, and accusations of undemocratic functioning, the election is no longer just a procedural matter—it’s now a litmus test for leadership, legality, and the future of cricket governance in Karnataka.
