The BCCI's much-awaited elections have been rescheduled by a day to October 23 in the wake of assembly elections in Haryana and Maharashtra, Chairman of the Committee of Administrators (CoA) running Indian cricket Vinod Rai told PTI on Tuesday.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI) elections were supposed to be on October 22, but have been rescheduled to October 23 due to assembly elections in Haryana and Maharashtra on October 21, and so that BCCI members from the two states are not inconvenienced.
The BCCI's much-awaited elections have been rescheduled by a day to October 23 in the wake of assembly elections in Haryana and Maharashtra, Chairman of the Committee of Administrators (CoA) running Indian cricket Vinod Rai told PTI on Tuesday.
Both the states will be voting on October 21 in a single-phase elections and to ensure that voter members from the two units are not inconvenienced, the Cricket Board poll has been postponed by a day.
"The BCCI elections are on track. It's just because of the state polls, we have decided to reschedule by a day. So it will now be held on October 23 instead of October 22. Anything else that you read anywhere will be factually incorrect," CoA chief Rai told PTI on Tuesday.
Another CoA member Diana Edulji said while she is "against any delay in conducting the BCCI elections", she understands that a day's extension is due to state polls.
"As per the Supreme Court order passed on September 20, the state units may be granted a few days' grace but BCCI elections should be on time. We may defer it by a day due to assembly elections in Maharashtra on 21st," the former India women's captain said.
Rai was happy with the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday during which its petition seeking clarification on the permission granted to the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association to hold elections, was admitted.
"Today, the petition came up for hearing. The BCCI counsel was there, TNCA counsel and amicus curiae P S Narsimha was there. I am happy with the outcome," he said.
"The SC took cognisance of the fact that some state units are misinterpreting the order mischievously on 'disqualification being confined to office-bearers only'," said Rai.
"Many felt that it meant that the 70-year clause (age cap), non-Indian passport holder clause have been done away with, which is not the case," the former CAG added.