District cricket bodies should voluntarily follow good governance, not be bound by BCCI rules: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on February 13 urged district cricket associations to voluntarily adopt good governance practices, including transparency in player selection, professional administration, and the removal 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.”, the Court observed, stressing 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 PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made these remarks while hearing an appeal against a Madras High Court verdict that had applied the principles of S Nithya v. Union of India (2022)—including mandatory inclusion of eminent sportspersons—to district cricket associations.

The matter arose from two related writ appeals decided by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. One appeal involved the membership and voting rights of the Anna Nagar Cricket Club, which was not seriously contested by the Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association (TDCA) before the Supreme Court.

The second appeal, filed by a former TDCA office bearer, raised wider concerns about governance and sought directions for fresh elections and preparation of a revised voters’ list. Relying on the earlier S Nithya judgment, the High Court had directed TDCA to strictly follow governance norms meant for athletics bodies, leading to the present appeal.

The key question before the Court was whether the reforms prescribed in S Nithya, including the requirement of 75 per cent representation of eminent sportspersons, could be imposed on district cricket associations, given that cricket is governed by a distinct legal framework developed by the Supreme Court in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2014).

Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court distinguished the S. Nithya ruling—which dealt specifically with governance in athletics—from the present case involving cricket. The bench clarified that district cricket associations are not required to bring their constitutions in line with that of the BCCI.

Referring to the BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar judgment, which regulates cricket governance, the Court noted that it does not interfere with the internal structure of state or district associations.

In substance, the Court held that there is no judicial requirement for district-level cricket bodies to adopt the BCCI constitution in its entirety, and that their independence is protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the portion of the High Court’s ruling that extended the S. Nithya principles to cricket associations was set aside.