E-Paper
SC declines to interfere with stay on Maharashtra Cricket Association polls
The CJI-led bench said that the MCA must pursue its remedies before the Bombay HC, which is slated to hear the matter again on Wednesday.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the Bombay high court’s order staying the election of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA), scheduled for January 6, after the high court found prima facie illegality and lack of transparency in the induction of nearly 400 new members just weeks before the polls.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that the MCA must pursue its remedies before the Bombay HC, which is slated to hear the matter again on Wednesday, February 4. The bench also comprised justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi.
The observations came while hearing an appeal filed by the MCA challenging the high court’s interim order that halted the election process on allegations of favouritism, nepotism and violation of Supreme Court norms governing elections to sports bodies.
Appearing for the MCA, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the high court had intervened at the eleventh hour, a day before the scheduled election, despite repeated Supreme Court rulings that once an election process has commenced, courts should ordinarily not interfere.
However, the bench was unconvinced. “The matter is pending before the High Court. You can go and argue there,” the bench said. When Singhvi attempted to contend that the injunction itself was illegal, the court retorted: “Injunction is justified. They stopped you from committing bigger fraud! Do not invite more comments from us.”
The court also took strong exception to the nature of the newly inducted members. Responding to submissions by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the CEO of the MCA, that the Charity Commissioner’s decision was flawed, the CJI remarked: “This is a country which produced outstanding cricketers who have retired. We would have let this be if you had some of them on this list, but you have people who don’t even know how to hold a bat! Don’t make us say more.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state of Maharashtra, submitted that one of the petitioners before the high court was an international cricketer – Kedar Jadhav. Picking up on the point, the CJI observed that at the very least, former cricketers deserved respect and a role in managing the affairs of the association. “Who is the association for if not the cricketers?” he asked.
Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for former India cricketer Jadhav -- one of the petitioners before the high court, questioned whether this was how former players ought to be treated by cricketing bodies.
Singhvi also raised concerns over the appointment of an administrator during the pendency of the matter, but the bench declined to go into the merits, noting that all issues were open before the high court.
In its brief order, the Supreme Court recorded that since the matter was coming up before the Bombay HC on February 4, all parties were at liberty to raise their contentions there. It said the high court would consider all relevant pleas, including any request for modification of interim orders, and endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Bombay HC, in its January 5 order, had stayed the elections to the MCA’s apex council after flagging serious concerns over the induction of around 400 new members, including relatives of the incumbent president and NCP (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar. A bench of chief justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad observed that the admissions created a “prima facie impression that everything was done in a hot haste”.
The high court noted that the voters’ list released on December 25, 2025, included names of Rohit Pawar’s wife Kunti and his father-in-law Satish Magar, as well as NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule’s daughter Revati. The petitions alleged that many of the new members had no connection with cricket and were inducted to allow a few individuals to run the association as a private body.
The court also recorded that existing members were denied an opportunity to raise objections and were not provided access to the minutes of the Apex Council meeting and the annual general meeting. Observing that the induction of such a large number of members just before elections would directly impact the electoral outcome, the high court said it could not adopt a hands-off approach and permit the alleged illegality to be perpetuated.
