3 min readVadodaraMar 25, 2026 12:23 AM IST
First published on: Mar 25, 2026 at 12:23 AM IST
THE GUJARAT High Court (HC) on Monday granted that the interim arrangement of the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA)’s present body to function as caretaker would continue until the next date of hearing of an appeal against the March 16 judgment pronounced by a Single Judge Bench of the Gujarat HC disqualifying four candidates from the elections that were held on February 15.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray granted that the interim arrangement would continue until the next date of hearing — April 7, as mutually prayed for by the advocates appearing for the appellants. The HC will hear the appeal filed by the BCA — an affiliate of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as well as former cricketer Kiran More, challenging the March 16 judgment.
On March 16, Justice Niral R Mehta, had held that the four candidates — Kiran More and Amul Jikar of the Revival Group as well as Anant Indulkar and Amar Petiwale of the Satyamev Jayate-Royal Group combine – had completed nine cumulative years in the Cricket Association either as members of the Apex Council or the Managing Committee in the Apex Council or as Office Bearers thus “incurring disqualification”. The court judgment, while citing the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee, accepted the principle of tenure-based disqualification, also held that a “mandatory cooling-off period of three years” should be observed upon completion of two consecutive terms.
Stating that the Electoral Officer was “envisaged as an authority responsible for conducting and supervising the entire election process”, the HC held that the election officer in the present case had “failed to discharge the statutory duty cast upon him” in deciding the objections and disputes raised through the applications of the petitioners. The court judgement had also stated that the SC had “envisaged the appointment of a former Election Commissioner as Electoral Officer with the expectation that such authority would discharge his functions independently, fairly, and without fear or favour”. However, the judgment had stated, that in the present case, the electoral officer had “neither acted independently nor fairly, and has failed to adhere to the very object and purpose for which the office of the Electoral Officer was created”.
After the pronouncement of the judgment, the advocate for the private respondents had prayed for extension of interim arrangement initially granted by the HC on February 18, to allow the present body of the BCA to continue as “caretaker”, clarifying that the arrangement is “purely temporary and shall not create any right, equity or claim for continuation beyond the interim period” and that the decisions taken by the caretaker body “shall remain subject to final outcome of the main proceedings”.
The petitioners – P C Solanki and R P Prajapati – who are members of the BCA, had sought directions to the BCCI, BCA and the Election Officer to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in order to “restrain” More, Indulkar, Jikar and Petiwale from contesting for the various posts of the BCA, challenging the validity of their candidatures for the term 2026–2029.
The HC will hear the appeal filed by the BCA — an affiliate of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as well as former cricketer Kiran More, challenging the March 16 judgment. 
Share
