District Cricket Associations Must Voluntarily Adopt Good Governance, Not Bound By BCCI Constitution : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (February 13) encouraged district cricket associations to voluntarily adopt principles of good governance, including transparency in player selection, professionalism in administration, and elimination of conflicts of interest.

“it is open, rather necessary, for the State Association to initiate reforms to ensure that District Associations operate as professional, transparent, and in the best interests of the sport.”, observed the Court, emphasizing that “District Associations must volunteer to adopt reformative measures such as good governance, refined management, transparency, and the exclusion of conflicts of interest.”

A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made these observations while hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Madras High Court, which had extended the ratio of S. Nithya v. Union of India (2022), mandating, inter alia, compulsory inclusion of eminent sportspersons in athletics federations, to district-level cricket associations as well.

The case arose out of two connected writ appeals decided by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. One appeal concerned the membership and voting rights of Anna Nagar Cricket Club, to which the Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association (TDCA) raised no serious objection before the Supreme Court.

The second appeal, however, filed by a former office bearer of TDCA, raised broader governance issues and sought directions for fresh elections and preparation of a revised voters' list. Relying on the High Court's earlier decision in S. Nithya, the Division Bench directed TDCA to strictly adhere to governance norms framed for athletics bodies, triggering the present appeal.

The issue was whether the reforms mandated in S. Nithya, including requirements such as a 75% representation of eminent sportspersons, could be imposed on a district cricket association, despite cricket being governed by a separate and specialised legal framework evolved by the Supreme Court in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2014).

Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court differentiated S. Nithya's ruling (which was only concerned with reforms in athletics governance and championships) from the facts of the present case, as it involved the sport of cricket. The bench also clarified that the district cricket associations are not bound to align their constitutions with that of the BCCI.

Further, referencing the decision of BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (supra), which governs the field of regulation in the context of cricket, the Court said that the judgment did not interfere with the internal composition of state or district associations.

In essence, the Court held that no judicial mandate requires district-level cricket bodies to adopt the BCCI constitution verbatim, and that their autonomy is protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, wherein that part of the High Court's ruling was set aside, which extended S. Nithya's ruling to the sport of cricket.

Headnote

Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(c) – Right to Form Associations – Regulatory Control over Sports Bodies –The Supreme Court reaffirmed that while the right to form an association includes its continued existence with its original voluntary composition, it does not extend to an uninhibited right to pursue goals free from regulatory control - So long as the initial voluntary composition remains unaffected, regulatory measures do not violate Article 19(1)(c).

Sports Administration – Applicability of S. Nithya Directions to Cricket Associations – Mandatory Inclusion of Sports Persons – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's directions which had applied the mandate from S. Nithya v. Union of India (requiring 75% of members and key office bearers to be eminent sports persons) to a District Cricket Association - Held, the directions in S. Nithya arose from the specific context of athletics governance and are inapplicable to Cricket associations, which are governed by the specialized regulatory framework established in the BCCI case.

Cricket Administration – District Cricket Associations – Conformity with BCCI Constitution – Held, the judgment in BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar does not mandate that District Associations must model their regulations and bye-laws on the exact lines of the BCCI Constitution - While State Associations are required to bring their constitutions in conformity with the BCCI, this requirement does not automatically extend to the internal composition and business of District-level bodies through judicial review.

Public Character of Sports – Material Resources of the Community – The Court emphasized that sporting facilities and opportunities are "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) and organizers are "institutions of the national life" under Article 38 - District Associations should volunteer to adopt "Sadhana" (endeavor) toward good governance, transparency, and the exclusion of conflicts of interest to ensure sports do not remain a privilege of the urban economic elite – Appeal allowed. [Relied on BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar (2016) 8 SCC 535; Paras 13-23]

Cause Title: THE TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION VERSUS ANNA NAGAR CRICKET CLUB & ANR. ETC.

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

Amicus Curiae Mr. V. C. Shukla, Adv.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Ms. Shweta Singh Parihar, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Mishra, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sabharwal, AOR Mr. Kunwar Surya Pratap, Adv. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshaj Chaturvedi, Adv.