State units unhappy with COA diktat on BCCI elections

Has Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (COA) violated the judgement of apex court itself while announcing the extension of deadline for BCCI elections?

That's the question asked by almost all the state cricket associations seeking directions from SC in this regard. But the ongoing Ayodhya temple title suit has delayed the listing of BCCI case so far. And, it is unlikely that the Justice SA Bobde-led bench will take up the matter even on Thursday as he is part of the five-member constitutional bench hearing the Ayodhya dispute.

Under normal circumstances, the pending petitions in SC would mean that BCCI AGM slated for October 22 can't go as per the schedule. But Vinod Rai & Co, by ordering the state bodies to hold elections by September 28 or face disqualification as BCCI voter, has made the situation even more confusing.

Many of those dozen state associations, who have not fully complied with the new BCCI constitution and instead filed affidavit before SC seeking a few clarifications, have told DNA that they are ready to play the waiting game than following COA's diktats.

"The apex court is yet to hear our pleas and we believe it will come up before October 22. Without that hearing, we won't be able to hold elections. And in our affidavit, we have clearly mentioned that COA cannot go ahead with the BCCI AGM until our side is heard," the officials of at least four cricket associations including Tamil Nadu and Karnataka – said on Wednesday.

It is important to mention here that COA relaxed its original deadline of September 14 to hold state elections by two weeks.

"On what basis can COA stop any state representative from voting in BCCI elections when our plea is pending before the court. This simply indicates that Rai-led COA is trying to help a certain group sweep BCCI elections by debarring the associations opposing to his diktats. It is a deliberate attempt to influence the election process of the BCCI. It is unheard of that the rules for election can be so arbitrarily amended and changed while the process is under way," said a senior BCCI official.

Going strictly by what COA has been indicating, only 19 out of 26 old state cricket associations (new voters not included here) can vote in the upcoming BCCI elections. This despite the fact that a significant number of interim applications, from composition of apex council to cooling off period to voting rights for former players – are pending before the apex court.

Having spoken to more than half a dozen senior officials of state associations, DNA is listing the main complaints of states against COA:

1. How COA has gone to the extent of changing the definition of a public servant to try and excuse certain people from being disqualified under the criteria set by the SC.
2. SC wanted the Electoral Officer to be independent of any individual or association. But COA has been framing, interpreting and implementing the rules apart from issuing media releases and clarifications in concurrence with the Electoral Officer. This, itself, is putting doubts in the minds of Electoral Officers.
3. When SC authorised the Amicus Curie to mediate with state associations to try and resolve issues, what is the hurry for COA – despite admitting that certain issues couldn't be resolved – to announce the election process.
4. When new BCCI constitution has been implemented as per Justice Lodha panel recommendations, why are the new elections not being held strictly as per the rules and regulations of newly registered constitution?
5. By appointing observers in 10 states and granting voting rights to a couple of new states like Uttarakhand and Puducherry, it shows how COA is trying to tilt results in favour of a particular group.
6. The recent direction regarding the 9-plus-9 years rule clearly is an attempt to impact the electoral college of the BCCI and the states.