Electoral Officer's failure to decide objections to candidate eligibility invalidates election process.

Petitioners, members of the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA), challenged the candidatures of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 for the posts of President, Secretary, and Treasurer for the term 2026–2029.

The challenge was based on the ground that these respondents were disqualified, having completed a cumulative tenure of nine years or more as an "Office Bearer" and/or "Councillor" in the Apex Council, in contravention of directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 and the BCA's own Rules and Regulations.

Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 submitted nominations for the ensuing elections scheduled for February 15, 2026.

The petitioners submitted written objections to the Electoral Officer (Respondent No. 3) on January 20, 2026, contending the disqualification of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 based on cumulative tenure.

The Electoral Officer, without adjudicating or communicating a decision on these objections, published the final list of candidates on January 22, 2026, including the names of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

The petitioners reiterated their objections on January 27, 2026, which also remained undecided.

The petitioners subsequently filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking enforcement of the Supreme Court's directions and restraining Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 from contesting the election.

This Court initially rejected a preliminary objection regarding maintainability and granted ad-interim relief, allowing voting to proceed but staying the counting of votes and publication of results without court permission, stressing that the private respondents' participation was subject to the final outcome.

The court primarily applied the principles derived from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments concerning reforms in the BCCI and State Cricket Associations, particularly Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, which adopted the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee.

Key principles include tenure-based disqualification for completing nine cumulative years in a State Cricket Association or as an Office Bearer.

A mandatory three-year cooling-off period after two consecutive terms as an Office Bearer, during which the individual cannot hold any other committee position.

The requirement that the expression “Office Bearer” or "Councillor" cannot be circumvented by holding other committee or Governing Council positions.

The court also relied on Rule 33(3) of the BCA's Rules and Regulations, which casts a statutory duty upon the Electoral Officer to decide disputes or objections relating to candidature and disqualification, with such decisions being final and conclusive.

The court's analysis centered on the interpretation of the terms "Office Bearer" and "Councillor" within the context of the disqualification rules established by the Supreme Court and incorporated into the BCA's Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations.

It found that the Electoral Officer failed to discharge their statutory duty under Rule 33(3) by not adjudicating the petitioners' objections regarding the disqualification of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

The Electoral Officer's actions of publishing the final list without a reasoned decision, and keeping an alleged consideration of objections in a "sealed cover", were deemed a violation of natural justice and a breach of trust reposed by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the court analyzed Rule 6 and Rule 14 to determine the scope of disqualification.

It held that the Apex Council, as the principal governing body, includes elected "Office Bearers" as "Councillors".

Therefore, to give effect to the Supreme Court's intention to prevent concentration of power and circumvention of tenure limits, the cumulative period of nine years for disqualification must include time served as both an "Office Bearer" and a "Councillor" or member of any other committee within the Apex Council.

Rejecting the respondents' contention that only tenure as a designated "Office Bearer" should count, the court reasoned that such a narrow interpretation would defeat the purpose of the disqualification rules, allowing individuals to retain power beyond the permissible cumulative period by switching roles.

The court referred to the tabular data showing that all specified respondents had completed cumulative tenures exceeding nine years either as "Office Bearers" or members of the Apex Council (or both).

The action of the Electoral Officer in accepting their nomination forms and including their names in the final list of candidates was declared arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable.

Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the acceptance of nominations and the publication of the final list of candidates for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, as well as the election/voting held on February 15, 2026, pertaining to these respondents.

The Electoral Officer was directed to proceed with the election process and declare the results in accordance with law and the court's findings.

An interim arrangement made on February 18, 2026, was extended for two weeks to allow respondents to approach a higher forum.