Jay Shah elected unopposed as next ICC chairman
Dubai, Aug 27: BCCI secretary Jay Shah will take over as the next ICC chairman on December 1 after being elected unopposed for the top post here on Tuesday, making him the fifth Indian to reach the pinnacle of global cricket administration.
The 35-year-old Shah, who has been the BCCI secretary since 2019, will take over from 62-year-old incumbent Greg Barclay after the New Zealander decided against running for a third consecutive term of two years.
Shah, who is the son of union home minister Amit Shah, will relinquish his position in India at the BCCI's Annual General Meeting likely to be held towards the end of next month or in October.
Shah became the youngest Indian among late Jagmohan Dalmiya, Sharad Pawar, N Srinivasan and Shashank Manohar to take over high-profile job.
The Ahmedabad-based administrator, who was the sole nominee for the chairmanship, emphasised his commitment to expanding the global reach and popularity of cricket, especially with its upcoming inclusion in the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics.
"I am humbled by the nomination as the Chair of the International Cricket Council," Shah stated in an ICC release.
He also acknowledged that international cricket stands at a critical juncture and it would be important to balance the coexistence of multiple formats, promote the adoption of advanced technologies, and introduce marquee events to new global markets.
"I am committed to working closely with the ICC team and our member nations to further globalise cricket. Our goal is to make cricket more inclusive and popular than ever before," he was quoted as saying in the release.
Being a powerful decision-maker in the richest cricket board of the world, which contributes more than 75 per cent of the revenue for the global body, Shah's election was never in doubt once he threw his hat in the ring.
It is understood that one among the powerful SENA cricket boards (South Africa, England, New Zealand and Australia) was Shah's proposer and another one of these countries seconded the nomination. And he remained the lone contender on the last day of nominations.
As per the ICC constitution, there are 17 votes -- 12 full Test playing nations, chairman, deputy chairman, two associate member nominees and one independent female director.
That he is a likely choice was evident when he was appointed the head of ICC's most powerful sub-committee -- the Finance and Commercial Affairs (F&CA) in 2022.
The timing couldn't have been better for Shah, who would have had to go on a mandatory cooling off period in 2025 for a period of three years till 2028.
The BCCI constitution allows office-bearers to stay in office for a cumulative period of 18 years -- nine in national board and nine in state units.
But at a stretch, a person can remain office-bearer for a period of only six years after which a three-years cooling off period is necessary.
Shah, if all goes well, can have two terms in the ICC and come back to complete his remaining four years in BCCI in 2028 albeit as president of the board.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
