Supreme Court Slams Sports Bodies Over Mismanagement, Backs High Court’s MCA Poll Freeze and Dismisses ‘Team India’ Plea
The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticised the way cricket and other sports associations are being run in the country, observing that such bodies should be led by individuals who genuinely understand sports — preferably former players — rather than by people with no real connection to the game.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Suryakant refused to interfere with an order of the Bombay High Court that had put a stay on the elections of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA).
The MCA elections were scheduled for January 6 but were halted amid allegations of nepotism, favoritism, and manipulation of the voter list.
Court Questions Sudden Surge in MCA Membership
During the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed concern over a sharp and unexplained increase in MCA’s membership.
The court noted that between 1986 and 2023, the association had only 164 members. However, a large number of new members were suddenly added in a short span of time.
“How did membership remain limited for decades and then suddenly expand like a bumper lottery?” the court asked.
The bench remarked that if MCA intended to increase its membership to around 300, it should have included reputed and retired international cricketers instead of questionable entrants.
Allegations of Voter List Manipulation
The case was triggered by a petition filed by former Indian cricketer and BJP leader Kedar Jadhav, who alleged that around 401 new members were added deliberately to influence the electoral outcome.
According to the petition, many of these new entrants were either relatives or business associates of NCP-SP MLA Rohit Pawar.
Lawyers representing MCA argued that a committee headed by a retired judge had overseen the membership process and rejected several applications.
They also claimed that the Charity Commissioner had appointed an administrator without consulting the state cabinet.
The Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their pleas and directed them to place all objections before the Bombay High Court, requesting it to decide the matter swiftly.
Only Two Major State Associations Run by Former Cricketers
The court highlighted that among India’s top five state cricket associations, only two are currently headed by former international players:
- Sourav Ganguly – President of the Bengal Cricket Association
- Venkatesh Prasad – President of the Karnataka State Cricket Association
The bench suggested that former players should play a larger role in managing sports institutions.
Court Affirms BCCI’s Authority Over Indian Cricket
In a separate matter, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to restrain the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) from referring to the national cricket team as “Team India.”
The petitioner argued that BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and is neither a government body nor a “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution — hence it should not label the team as India’s national team.
However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that BCCI’s control over Indian cricket is now recognised not only in practice but also in law. He added that the board enjoys full backing from the government, making its authority unquestionable.
At one point, Justice Bagchi commented that the situation in cricket sometimes resembles “the tail wagging the dog,” referring to the overwhelming influence of money and power in the sport.
‘Stop Wasting Court’s Time’
The Supreme Court termed the petition frivolous and dismissed it outright, warning that heavy fines could be imposed for such unnecessary litigation.
Chief Justice Suryakant reprimanded the petitioner, saying,
“You cannot sit at home and draft petitions like this. Do not waste the court’s time.”
The bench also pointed out that a National Sports Tribunal has already been notified to deal with sports-related disputes.
Delhi High Court Had Already Rejected Similar Plea
The same petition had earlier been dismissed by the Delhi High Court in October 2025.
Then Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay had strongly criticised the plea, calling it a complete waste of judicial time.
He had asked pointedly whether the team representing India internationally should not be called India’s team, and cited examples of Olympic, hockey, football, and tennis teams that represent the country despite not being directly selected by the government.
Argument on Government Funding Rejected
The petitioner had also argued that BCCI neither receives government funds nor holds the status of a national sports federation, as revealed through RTI replies.
Yet both the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court firmly held that these technicalities were irrelevant and that the matter lacked any real merit.
