The Gujarat High Court on Monday disqualified former India cricketer Kiran More and three others from contesting the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA) elections, setting aside the election officer’s decision to accept their nomination papers for various office-bearer posts. Justice Niral R Mehta allowed a plea that cited a Supreme Court judgment regarding the candidates’ completion of a nine-year cumulative tenure in a cricket body and mandatory cooling-off periods. The court set aside the action of the election officer in accepting the nomination forms of More, Amul Jikar, Anant Indulkar and Amar Petiwale for the post of office bearers and publication of their names in the final list of candidates dated February 22.
While allowing the plea, the court held that the respondents have incurred disqualification from contesting the election for the post of office bearers of BCA.
“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,” he said.
The court directed the EO to proceed further with the election process and declare the result in accordance with the law and the observations made in its order.
It also accepted the respondents’ request for an interim arrangement, granting them two weeks to appeal the court’s order.
The court, in its earlier order on February 13, had granted interim protection to More and the others, directing that the voting on February 15 proceed, while restricting the counting and publication of results without its prior permission.
The petitioners, Pradeepsinh Solanki and Ramchandra Prajapati from Vadodara, have named the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Baroda Cricket Association (BCA), More and three others as parties in their plea.
The petitioners sought to restrain the respondents from contesting for the posts of president, secretary, treasurer, and/or councillors of the BCA, a state cricket body, and to stay the election process and declaration of results pending final hearing of the plea.
They cited a Supreme Court judgment dated September 14, 2022, which stated that in proceedings relating to BCCI reforms, any person completing a cumulative tenure of nine years in a state cricket association as office bearer and/or councillor would stand disqualified.
The apex court had also held that after two consecutive terms, a cooling-off period of three years is mandatory, and had further directed that bylaws and MoA should incorporate provisions relating to tenure, qualifications, and disqualifications, they pointed out.
The BCA, a member of the BCCI, is governed by its Memorandum of Association (MoA) and rules and regulations as amended from time to time.
The petitioners, being members of BCA, submitted written objections on January 20 before the EO, contending that the four respondents were disqualified under the above Supreme Court judgment.
They requested a hearing and rejection of the nominations, but their objections were not decided, and the EO published the final list of candidates.
After publication of the final list, the petitioners again approached the EO on January 27, reiterating that the said candidates had completed more than nine years and were disqualified, but it was again not decided, following which they approached the high court.
The respondents submitted that the BCCI and BCA cannot be equated, since the former is a national body having countrywide control over cricket, whereas a state or district association controls the game only for a limited segment.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)