HC suspends BCB chief’s directive on councilor nominations, no bar to polls
The High Court on Monday, September 22, suspended the legal effect of a controversial letter issued by Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) President Aminul Islam Bulbul, which sought to appoint councilors from district and divisional ad hoc committees ahead of the board’s October 6 elections.
However, legal experts confirm the election itself faces no legal barrier and will proceed as scheduled.
A High Court vacation bench comprising Justice Md Mozibur Rahman Miah and Justice Biswajit Debnath issued the order following a writ petition challenging the legality of Bulbul’s directive. The petition was filed by four individuals: Manjurul Alam of Rajbari, Jasim Uddin Khasru of Gopalganj, Moinuddin Chowdhury of Lakshmipur, and Ali Imam of Tangail. Barrister Md. Ruhul Quddus Kajal, representing the petitioners, confirmed the court’s decision.
The controversy erupted after BCB President Bulbul rejected nominations submitted by several district sports associations — on the grounds that they did not select councilors from NSC-appointed ad hoc committees. He then issued a directive requiring new nominations to be submitted under his personal signature, bypassing the BCB CEO — a move critics say oversteps his authority.
Under normal procedure, former players and sports organizers from district and divisional bodies submitted their nomination forms within the stipulated deadline. However, Bulbul invalidated forms from districts that nominated councilors outside the ad hoc committee framework — even though many of these forms were duly signed by District Administrators and Divisional Commissioners.
At least 53 such forms have been submitted to the BCB. In response to non-compliance, Bulbul unilaterally dissolved the existing ad hoc committees appointed by the National Sports Council (NSC) and issued fresh instructions for nominations — signed by himself — demanding new councilors be selected from reconstituted ad hoc panels.
Legal experts argue this move violates BCB’s own constitution. Article 12 of the BCB Constitution does not permit the re-submission or re-nomination of councilors once the deadline has passed. Moreover, the BCB President holds no authority to override the nomination process or issue directives that effectively rewrite electoral rules.
Despite the legal cloud over Bulbul’s letter, lawyers involved in the case emphasized that the suspension of the directive does not impede the election timeline. “The October 6 election is not under injunction. The court’s order only halts the enforcement of the president’s letter — not the electoral process itself,” said Barrister Kajal.
The ruling is expected to bring temporary relief to district associations whose nominations were earlier rejected, although the final interpretation of electoral eligibility may still require further legal or administrative clarification before voting day.