Jammu: Several clubs affiliated with the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association have raised objections over the preparation of electoral rolls for the upcoming JKCA elections, alleging violations of the constitution and the exclusion of 16 clubs from the poll process.
In October, the Supreme Court appointed Achal Kumar Joti IAS (Retd) as the Electoral Officer to conduct the elections within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the order.
“It may shock you to know that, out of 23 clubs eligible to vote, more than 16 clubs have been excluded and have been forced to approach courts of law despite their status and representation being clear in terms of the approved constitution. This has been orchestrated by some vested interests,” a joint statement issued by the clubs said.
The clubs said after prolonged legal battles—first against resistance to the Lodha Committee reforms, then against the Committee of Administrators (CoA) and later against a BCCI sub-committee that allegedly delayed elections—the JKCA had secured a Supreme Court order to conduct elections under the approved constitution.
“Initially hopeful of a transparent process, the clubs alleged that the EO’s actions later mirrored those of the sub-committee, which they accused of attempting to influence the electoral outcome,” the statement said.
According to the clubs, JKCA rules clearly state that orders of a court-authorised ombudsman prevail in disputes relating to club representatives.
However, they alleged that the draft electoral rolls included individuals rejected by the division bench-appointed ombudsman, while excluding those recognised by the court-appointed CoA.
The clubs also alleged that despite a restraint order passed by a Jammu court preventing the JKCA sub-committee from finalising the draft electoral rolls, they were still published.
According to the protesting clubs, the alleged manipulation was aimed not only at influencing the election outcome but also at facilitating the appointment of favoured individuals to key posts such as CEO, Ombudsman, Ethics Officer, coaches and team managers.
They further claimed that clubs which conducted internal elections to comply with eligibility clauses under the sports body’s constitution were penalised through rejection of nominations.
