Baroda Cricket Association Assures Court on Presidential Nomination
The Baroda Cricket Association has made a significant commitment before the Gujarat High Court. On Thursday, the cricket body clearly stated it would not reject the presidential nomination of Dr Darshan Banker. This assurance came despite Banker's planned absence during the scrutiny of nomination forms scheduled for January 20, 2026.
Court Disposes Petition After BCA's Submission
Justice N R Mehta of the Gujarat High Court disposed of the petition orally. This decision followed submissions from advocate Kabir Hathi, who represented the BCA. Hathi acted under instructions from a former office bearer and the legal officer of the Association.
The court proceedings involved detailed arguments from both sides. Senior Advocate Mihir Thakore represented the petitioner, while Advocate Shah appeared for the BCA. Their discussions centered on a contentious clause in the election notice issued by the BCA on January 6.
Specific Conditions Outlined in Court
The Gujarat High Court recorded specific conditions in its oral order. The BCA committed that Dr Banker's nomination would not face rejection due to his absence during scrutiny. Furthermore, the Association agreed to permit one representative of Dr Banker to appear before the election officer.
This representative will have clear rights during the process. They can make representations if any objections arise against Banker's nomination. Additionally, they can lodge objections concerning the nomination forms of other candidates.
Debate Over Election Notification Language
During the hearing, the BCA presented its perspective on election procedures. The Association argued that Clause G of the current election notification was not actually a departure from previous years. They pointed to the February 2023 election, which contained a similar clause.
However, Justice Mehta questioned the specific wording choices. The court observed an important distinction between the two notifications. The 2023 clause stated that scrutiny would be conducted "in presence of the candidates." In contrast, the 2026 notification uses stronger language, stating that "candidates must remain present."
Court Questions Mandatory Presence Requirement
Justice Mehta directly sought justification from the BCA. The judge asked why the Association inserted a clause making candidate presence mandatory. "You have all powers, there is no dispute about your powers," Justice Mehta remarked. "But the powers have to be exercised to see that the process is effective and in a more democratic manner."
The court pressed for specific reasons. "Show me why the presence of this candidate is required," Justice Mehta asked during proceedings.
Legal Arguments and Constitutional Considerations
Advocate Hathi provided the BCA's legal position during the hearing. He informed the court that the Association's Constitution contains no provisions regarding candidate presence during nomination scrutiny. However, he referenced the 2019 report of the R M Lodha committee.
This committee was appointed to reform cricket administration across the country. Hathi also noted that the BCA had appointed a mandatory Presiding Ombudsman, retired Justice AJ Desai. The petitioner had not approached this ombudsman before moving the High Court.
Senior Advocate Mihir Thakore presented counterarguments. He cited Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act. Thakore submitted that this section's provisions contradict the BCA's position. The Act allows candidates to see other nomination papers and raise objections. It also permits responses to objections from the Returning Officer or others.
Thakore emphasized that the Act does not make candidate presence mandatory for nomination approval. The purpose is to facilitate objection processes, not to enforce physical attendance.
BCA's Concerns About Precedent
The Baroda Cricket Association expressed concerns about broader implications. They implored the High Court not to treat this petition as a precedent. The Association warned that it could "open a Pandora's box" with other members seeking similar relief for election absences.
Advocate Hathi provided practical context for this concern. The Women's Premier League is scheduled to begin in Vadodara shortly. This tight timeline leaves no room for the BCA to issue fresh election notices. Therefore, the Association requested that Dr Banker's case be considered individually.
Previous Court Directions and Final Observations
The Gujarat High Court had already provided interim directions on January 9. At that time, the court directed the BCA not to reject Banker's nomination. It also granted permission for the petitioner to send a representative during the January 20 scrutiny.
In its final oral order, the court made important observations about election conduct. "The scrutiny of nominations has to be in a purposeful manner," the High Court stated. The court also clarified expectations for the upcoming election. "It is needless to clarify that the BCA is expected to hold the election in a fair and democratic manner."
This case highlights ongoing tensions in cricket administration between procedural requirements and practical considerations. The court's disposition reflects a balance between upholding election rules and ensuring democratic participation.
