The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the way cricket associations in India are being run, strongly emphasising that sports bodies should be led by former players rather than individuals with little or no understanding of the game. The court observed that cricket exists because of cricketers, not administrators, and that athletes deserve greater respect and representation in sports governance.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi made these remarks while refusing to interfere with a Bombay High Court order that stayed the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA) elections. The elections, originally scheduled for January 6, were halted following allegations of nepotism and favouritism in the association’s membership process.
During the hearing, the apex court closely examined the MCA’s membership records and questioned a sudden surge in new members. The bench noted that between 1986 and 2023, the association had only 164 members, but witnessed a sharp increase shortly thereafter. The timing of this expansion raised concerns, prompting the Chief Justice to question whether the process was fair and transparent.
The CJI remarked that if the association intended to expand its membership to 300, the additional slots should have been reserved for distinguished former international cricketers. He pointed out that India has produced several outstanding players who, after retirement, are best suited to contribute to the administration of the sport. Expressing displeasure, the court cautioned against inducting individuals who lack even basic knowledge of cricket, stating that such practices weaken the credibility of sporting institutions.
The bench further underlined that sports associations derive their identity from athletes, not office-bearers. Drawing comparisons, the court said that cricket bodies are known because of cricketers, just as hockey associations are recognised because of hockey players, and administrators must acknowledge and respect this fundamental reality.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners including the MCA and NCP-SP MLA Rohit Pawar, argued that the membership process had been supervised by a committee headed by a retired judge. He submitted that several applications were rejected after scrutiny and also raised objections to the Charity Commissioner appointing an administrator without cabinet consultation.
The legal dispute originated from a petition filed by former Indian cricketer and BJP leader Kedar Jadhav, who alleged that the MCA voter list had been manipulated through the sudden addition of nearly 401 members. According to the petition, many of the new inductees were relatives or business associates of Rohit Pawar, raising questions about fairness and conflict of interest.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their pleas and directed them to place all their arguments before the Bombay High Court. The apex court requested the High Court to hear the matter expeditiously, clearing the way for further examination of the allegations surrounding the MCA elections.