BCCI–NSGA Overlap Raises Questions Over Governance of Cricket Bodies

The applicability of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (NSGA) to cricket has emerged as an issue in the dispute over the Odisha Cricket Association’s (OCA) delayed elections. The matter is pending before the Orissa High Court in Lalitendu Bidyadhar Mohapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 8354 of 2026, challenging the deferment of the OCA elections.

The OCA elections were due in October 2025. The OCA initially deferred the elections in view of the India–South Africa T20 International scheduled in Odisha in December 2025. Subsequently, at a Special General Body Meeting held on February 22, 2026, the OCA deferred the election process again.

OCA Council member Lalitendu Bidyadhar Mohapatra and Sunrise Club, Cuttack, challenged the decision before the Orissa High Court. The petitioners sought directions to declare the election process and conduct elections for various office-bearer posts of the OCA.

Thereafter, on August 13, 2026, the Court directed the BCCI to file its affidavit. In its affidavit, the BCCI stated that the OCA should hold elections without further delay. It referred to a three-year term for office-bearers, a maximum of three terms (nine years), and a three-year cooling-off period after two consecutive terms. According to the BCCI, these requirements were adopted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar [Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014] dated August 9, 2018 and September 14, 2022 and were binding on State associations.

The difference becomes relevant when one compares the tenure rules under the two regimes. Under the Supreme Court-approved BCCI framework, the cooling-off period operates after two successive terms at the BCCI or State Association level. The NSGA, in contrast, permits the President, Secretary General or Treasurer of a National Sports Body to hold office for up to three consecutive terms, separately or in combination, before any cooling-off period applies. The question, therefore, is which regime governs cricket bodies.

The OCA defended the deferment in its counter-affidavit filed on August 21, 2026, stating that its General Body had taken the decision, and that it was not unilateral action by its office-bearers. It referred to the General Body meetings held on August 31, 2025 and February 22, 2026, and relied on the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports’ December 22, 2025 notification permitting deferment of upcoming National Sports Federation elections until December 31, 2026 as a transitional measure.

The BCCI also contended that the NSGA had not notified cricket as a “designated sport” and that its existing constitutional framework therefore continued to apply. The issue has now reached the Supreme Court. On September 8, 2026, while hearing the long-running BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, C.A. No. 4235 of 2014, the Court asked the BCCI and State cricket associations why the NSGA should not govern them, and why the 2025 Act should not regulate the terms and conditions of their office-bearers.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the NSGA applies to cricket. Its eventual decision could determine how the new statutory framework sits alongside the governance structure established for the BCCI and State associations in the earlier Supreme Court proceedings.