A legal battle has emerged between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Odisha Cricket Association (OCA) regarding the state unit’s failure to conduct elections. The dispute, currently before the state High Court, centers on whether the OCA is violating its own bylaws, the BCCI’s Memorandum of Association (MoA), and Supreme Court directives by repeatedly delaying the process.
The controversy was triggered by a petition from former Odisha cricketer and coach Lalitendu Bidyadhar Mohapatra, who sought court intervention to force an election. In response, BCCI senior legal manager Melinda Colaco filed an affidavit asserting that it is imperative for the OCA to hold elections immediately. The BCCI warned that failure to comply could lead to the association being declared ineligible for grants and potentially facing derecognition if the non-compliance persists for two years under Rule 3(b)(3) of the BCCI MoA.
The OCA leadership—comprising president Pankaj Mohanty, secretary Sanjay Behera, and treasurer Bikash Pradhan—has remained in office since October 2019. Elections originally scheduled for October 2025 have been postponed twice. The first delay was intended to facilitate the smooth hosting of the India vs. South Africa T20I on December 9, while the second was attributed to a circular from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports regarding the transitionary period for National Sports Federations.
Secretary Sanjay Behera argued that the OCA postponed the vote to evaluate the implications of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, particularly given that cricket is now recognized as an Olympic sport for the 2028 Games in the United States. The association formally resolved to defer the elections during Special General Meetings held on August 31, 2025, and February 22, 2026.
However, the BCCI maintains that these delays are unjustified. In its affidavit, the national board clarified that while the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, has been enacted, cricket has not been officially designated as a sport to which the Act applies. Furthermore, the BCCI emphasized that it discharges significant public functions and is therefore subject to writ jurisdiction, reinforcing the binding nature of Supreme Court mandates on its state affiliates.
The ongoing litigation also explores the broader question of whether the administration of cricket constitutes a public duty. As the parties prepare for the next court hearing scheduled for Thursday, August 27, the BCCI continues to insist that no office-bearer should hold their position for more than two consecutive years, urging the OCA to align with the spirit of the Supreme Court’s rulings. The report also notes that the petition further states, “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. The report also notes that he went on to further state, “That it is important to mention two important aspects that come for consideration by this Hon’ble court. The report also notes that the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, vide its notification no 12-13 2025, has issued a circular with the subject “Deferment of Upcoming election of National Sports Federations up to 31st December 2026, as a transitionary measure.”.
