The Gujarat High Court on Monday disqualified former India cricketer Kiran More and three others from contesting the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA) elections, holding that they had incurred disqualification under a Supreme Court ruling that limits the cumulative tenure of office bearers in cricket bodies.
Justice Niral R. Mehta set aside the election officer’s decision to accept the nomination papers of More, Amul Jikar, Anant Indulkar and Amar Petiwale for various posts in the BCA. The court held that their nominations had been wrongly accepted despite the candidates having completed a cumulative tenure of nine years in a cricket body.
Allowing a petition filed by BCA members Pradeepsinh Solanki and Ramchandra Prajapati, the High Court ruled that the respondents stood disqualified from contesting the election for the posts of office bearers of the association.
The court stated:
“Consequently, the action of accepting the nomination forms of the respondents for the post of office bearers and publication of their names in the final list of candidates dated February 22 by the election officer (EO) is set aside.”
The High Court directed the election officer to continue with the election process and declare the results in accordance with the law and the observations recorded in the order.
At the request of the respondents, the court granted them two weeks to challenge the order before a higher forum.
Earlier, on February 13, the High Court had granted interim protection to the respondents by allowing voting in the BCA elections scheduled for February 15 to proceed. However, the court had restrained the authorities from counting votes or declaring results without its permission.
The petitioners had approached the High Court after their objections before the election officer were not decided.
They had named the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Baroda Cricket Association (BCA), Kiran More and three others as respondents. The petition sought directions restraining the candidates from contesting for the posts of president, secretary, treasurer and councillors of the BCA.
The petitioners argued that the four candidates had already completed more than nine years in cricket administration and were therefore disqualified in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling dated September 14, 2022, delivered in proceedings related to BCCI reforms.
According to that judgment, any person who has completed a cumulative tenure of nine years as an office bearer or councillor in a state cricket association would stand disqualified. The apex court had also held that a mandatory cooling-off period of three years must be observed after two consecutive terms.
The petitioners, both members of the BCA, submitted written objections on January 20 before the election officer, contending that the four candidates were ineligible under the Supreme Court’s directions.
They sought a hearing and rejection of the nomination papers. However, the objections were not adjudicated and the final list of candidates was published.
Following this, the petitioners again approached the election officer on January 27 reiterating that the candidates had already completed more than nine years of tenure. As the issue remained undecided, they moved the Gujarat High Court.
During the proceedings, the respondents argued that the BCCI and state cricket associations such as the BCA cannot be equated. They contended that while the BCCI is a national body exercising countrywide control over cricket, state or district associations operate only within a limited geographical segment.
The BCA, which is affiliated with the BCCI, functions under its Memorandum of Association and rules and regulations as amended from time to time.
After examining the issue, the High Court concluded that the respondents had incurred disqualification and set aside the election officer’s decision accepting their nominations.
